Thursday 1 March 2012

Insurer's trade association: Your house has not burned down

From Sky News:

That smouldering wreck standing in your garden was not the result of a fire, an official trading body has ruled.

The Insurers Scams and Dissemblement Association said that towering flames and billowing smoke which neighbours report having seen emanating from the building, did not equate to a 'conflagration event' - essentially a fire. It means payments of fire insurance - an insurance mechanism to protect you in case your house burns down - totalling about £100,000 has not been triggered.

ISDA, which oversees complex forms of insurance, was asked by you to determine whether your house had burned down earlier in the week. A second question relating to the ruined contents was asked on Thursday morning, stepping up the pressure on ISDA's Determinations committee which made the ruling.

In response to both your questions, the 15 members voted unanimously that a "conflagration event" had not happened.
Your house not on fire earlier in the week, source.

The news will delight other insurance companies who are desperate to avoid any mention of a fire. But ISDA noted that your garage was still smouldering and further questions relating to the presence of two fire engines in the middle of the road could be submitted. The body said that "a conflagration event could occur at a later date as further glowing embers come to light."

ISDA's review of your house followed the fire brigade's decision to hose several thousand gallons of water at it - based on their initial assessment that your house was indeed 'burning'. It was, the fire brigade said, a reaction to the sparks landing in your neighbour's garden and the pall of smoke spreading over the neighbourhood. ISDA's spokesman however suggested that most of the damage was actually caused by the fire brigade's over-application of water to the problem.

Your bank also moved to temporarily suspend the eligibility of your house as collateral for bank loans. It will start accepting it again once you have borrowed the money elsewhere to pay for it to be rebuilt, when measures to insure yourself against losses come into effect.

12 comments:

Old BE said...

A headline today reported that the cost of insuring UK sovereign debt had collapsed to an all-time low. Presumably because the risk of actually having to pay out even if the UK government defaults is pretty low.

After all, buildings insurance companies would not be able to charge much for not insuring against fire..!

Mark Wadsworth said...

BE: "Presumably because the risk of actually having to pay out even if the UK government defaults is pretty low."

I actually laughed out loud at that :-)

A K Haart said...

Do these CDS contracts have a book value which may now have to be written down?

Mark Wadsworth said...

AKH, at this stage I am rolling about on the floor laughing.

No doubt the self same banks sold side-insurance which would pay out in the event that the CDS insurance didn't pay out etc ad infinitum. And the poor suckers who paid for all this crap can write that off as a waste of money as well.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

Have linked to this and the on to which you refer.

Bayard said...

Who are these "private investors" who are losing out? Are they banksters, oligarchs or ordinary people, whose money has been "invested" by pension funds and the like?

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, probably the last category, but that's just my guess: you don't hear much squealing from proper hedge fund speculators like Soros or Paulson, who genuinely care about their reputation for making profits for their investors, they got out long ago.

Joe Public said...

Is this the same Insurance Industry which will charge you a premium to provide Flood-Insurance, but won't insure you if your neighbourhood has ever had a flood?

Mark Wadsworth said...

JP, the very same, they will also only pay out life insurance if the deceased applies in person.

mombers said...

JP, of course the insurance industry won't cover flooding. They leave it to taxpayers to build defences and pay compensation if there's a bad flood. The beneficiaries (landowners) get to trouser the resultant windfall.

mombers said...

JP, of course the insurance industry won't cover flooding. They leave it to taxpayers to build defences and pay compensation if there's a bad flood. The beneficiaries (landowners) get to trouser the resultant windfall.

mombers said...

JP, of course the insurance industry won't cover flooding. They leave it to taxpayers to build defences and pay compensation if there's a bad flood. The beneficiaries (landowners) get to trouser the resultant windfall.