#209442 - 10/10/10 10:41 PM
Re: My thoughts on the $75 firefighting fee
[Re: Susan]
|
Addict
Registered: 03/18/10
Posts: 530
Loc: Montreal Canada
|
So here's another idea, to make sure the fee gets paid: Tack it on to something that DOES get paid, like the property tax. Just include it right in there. I believe that was the plan at some point in that county but residents voted it down.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209452 - 10/10/10 11:46 PM
Re: My thoughts on the $75 firefighting fee
[Re: Since2003]
|
Addict
Registered: 01/07/09
Posts: 475
Loc: Birmingham, Alabama
|
I'll leave this topic with this article from my favorite satirical publication, "The Onion"
Now THAT'S funny.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209584 - 10/13/10 07:54 AM
Re: My thoughts on the $75 firefighting fee
[Re: Since2003]
|
Journeyman
Registered: 12/20/06
Posts: 78
Loc: Hudson, FL
|
That happened up in New England when we lived there.
A house caught on fire, they called the fire department, turned out they weren't subscribed, and it burned to the ground.
...
...
...
_________________________
What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209601 - 10/13/10 03:58 PM
Re: My thoughts on the $75 firefighting fee
[Re: jzmtl]
|
Addict
Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 484
Loc: Anthem, AZ USA
|
So here's another idea, to make sure the fee gets paid: Tack it on to something that DOES get paid, like the property tax. Just include it right in there. I believe that was the plan at some point in that county but residents voted it down. Personally, don't believe something as critical as fire protection should be "opt in." Unfortunate but true ... sometimes people have to be protected from themselves. The consequences aren't over yet, assuming they have a mortgage and homeowners/fire insurance coverage. From industry-standard Deed of Trust: Preservation, Maintenance and Protection of the Property. Borrower shall not destroy, damage or impair the Property, allow the Property to deteriorate or commit waste on the Property.Homeowners insurance policy boilerplate: Perils not included. This company shall not be liable for loss by fire or other perils insured against in this policy caused, directly or indirectly, by: neglect of the insured to use all reasonable means to save and preserve the property at and after a loss.Conditions suspending or restricting insurance. Unless otherwise provided in writing added hereto this Company shall not be liable for loss occurring (a) while the hazard is increased by any means within the control or knowledge of the insured.
_________________________
"Things that have never happened before happen all the time." — Scott Sagan, The Limits of Safety
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209614 - 10/13/10 07:37 PM
Re: My thoughts on the $75 firefighting fee
[Re: DesertFox]
|
Sheriff
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 12/03/09
Posts: 3859
Loc: USA
|
This is where lawyers have all the fun. Does the phrase in the insurance boilerplate, "neglect of the insured to use all reasonable means to save and preserve the property at and after loss" require paying the fee as a "reasonable means" or does it mean "try your darnedest to put the thing out"? Bet if you research the case law in six different states, you will get six different answers. My understanding is that where fire service is provided by subscription, insurance policies will require that the subscription be kept up to date.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
221
Guests and
123
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
