this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
131 points (100.0% liked)
Mildly Interesting
17443 readers
116 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is this for a renter of somebody else’s property? Barring the damaged by water part and maybe the vermin it seems pretty standard.
E.g. if an upstairs apartments floods I’d want my insurance to cover my belongings while the landlord’s insurance would cover the building.
That seems the most likely damage (even more than fire, etc) that I’d want to have covered by insurance as a renter.
Of course I just glanced at it so please let me know if there’s anything I missed.
This is plausible. That or it's just a really cheap policy - no windstorm/hail damage is very much NOT normal for homeowners though, even so.
The rest of this is pretty standard stuff and the fact that people seem angry/surprised by it speaks volumes to how little attention they've paid to their own policies. Read your paperwork y'all. It's tedious, but you are also party to the insurance contract that you're paying for. It can also help you find grey areas of coverage, and a grey area (ambiguous language) tends to work out well for the insured party (you, if you have insurance).
Right. Barring some weird oceanfront property in Florida where you’re looking at buying separate flood insurance. And you can bet that your mortgage lender will want you to have that.