Hearing the interview, it sounds like the homeowner did not realize that the insurance coverage didn’t include the contents of the house. It would not surprise me one bit if they glossed over that when he got his policy.
I think that’s extremely unlikely. It’s a primary aspect of choosing homeowner’s insurance, it would be clearly stated on the summary page. They want to sell you contents coverage, the default would be that it would be included in a proposed policy, and you’d have to decline it. I’d be more suspicious about the homeowner’s claim that he didn’t know he didn’t have it.
Insurance companies don’t want to sell you contents coverage as much as they want to sell you structure coverage, because that’s the stuff they end up paying out on. You’re more likely to suffer a burglary loss than your house burning down. Non-savvy buyers probably just sign their names without scrutinizing anything too closely because it’s so much gobbledygook. Did you watch the interview? They didn’t strike me as that much on the ball. Who knows what their agent told them? And we all know how insurance companies and agents are only looking out for your best interests (not).
Insurers compete on price. The easiest way to offer a low price is to insure against less perils. Especially in the age of internet and 800-number insurance cos, where people aren’t dealing with an independent agent who’s supposedly a) an expert, and b) on your side, it’s a decent bet that the vast majority of Americans who have insurance of whatever kind grossly overestimate the details of what it will actually cover.
Several points that people have touched upon:
-
It is never your fault if people intentionally steal and/or destroy your property; it is their fault. However, the type of people who will steal and/or destroy your property are those without money and judgment proof, therefore, it is in your best interests to insure your property against those people.
-
Parents are typically not liable for the intentional torts of their children. Some states, as mentioned, have statutorily provided small amounts (like $5k) that the parents are on the hook for, but the parents may be judgment proof themselves. Negligent supervision of a child by a parent is a popular ground for tort lawyers to try, but depending on the age of the child, you may be hard pressed to say that it was negligent to let your 14 year old to hang out at a friend’s house.
-
Ye olde Rule of Sevens as mentioned above holds that children under age 7 are utterly incapable of committing a tort/crime. Those children age 7 to 14 are presumed incapable of committing a tort/crime unless you can overcome that presumption, and that children age 14 to 18 (used to be 21…why it is the rule of seven, but since the Vietnam War, there is full adulthood at 18) are presumed capable of committing a tort/crime unless they can overcome that presumption.
Many states have abandoned this rule and held that a child shall be judged as a reasonably prudent child of his/her age and circumstance. Therefore juries have the absurd task of deciding what a reasonably prudent three year old would do under the circumstances.
Contents coverage isn’t even that expensive. I have renter’s insurance for my contents, and it’s about $150 a year for $40,000 in coverage. I do have a separate policy for my business.
– they’re “children” and won’t be charged
Good.
Eh? Insurance companies want to sell you both - that’s what they’re in business for. They may not make as much on contents insurance, but they still make good money off it.
It would not surprise me if some people (maybe this family) make the decision to take out as little insurance as possible on the premise that it’s a cost not a benefit, and then get bitten on the arse for it.
Well, it is a cost in the sense that it has negative expected value. Since insurance prices in a profit margin, in general it is better to decline insurance for anything where you could take the potential loss without major consequences. And if you are unlucky, that doesn’t mean your decision to decline insurance was wrong.
But of course the majority probably don’t make this kind of rational analysis to decide if they can really absorb the potential loss without too much pain. They are just trying to save the premium and hoping for the best, and - as you say - getting bitten.
Myself I have both structural and property insurance on my home because it never even crossed my mind not to do so. Why put your personal property at risk like that?
But then I bought a house in a FEMA flood zone and the difference between flood insurance for the structure and the contents was a couple of thousand a year. Since I wasn’t required to insure for personal property by my lender I chose not to do so. In my case it is much more likely that my walk out basement would get flooded by as much as 3 feet of water rather than the entire house washing away. So I rolled the dice and said no to FEMA for personal property coverage. There is nothing in my basement that isn’t prepared for a flood or isn’t so valuable I couldn’t replace it out of pocket.
Okay, now that we’ve thoroughly scolded the homeowners for not having enough insurance coverage, possibly because they’re just dumb, to wit:
What struck me most about the incident was the utter sense of shock and violation they must have felt to find their home in that state when coming back from a trip.
Even if someone had adequate/ample/super insurance coverage, or even the ready cash to fix and replace everything, this would be a very upsetting, even traumatizing event. The hassle and bother of inventorying the damage, cleaning up, hiring cleanup, replacing stuff, where to live while it’s all being fixed-- insurance wouldn’t cover ALL of that… and besides, money can’t fix the emotional component of such a deeply distressing experience. Yeah, there’s definitely more back story-- this was likely done by kids they knew. Kids who were “bored.” As foster parents the Kennys are probably acquainted with troubled families and kids and have tried to help the community with problems like this.
What’s up with making a beeline for the insurance issue without a speck of compassion for these people??
But, just like anything, they advertise their lowest price. “From $50 a month!”
Then once you are in the door, they hit you with the addons.
It was 20 years ago that I bought my house, so I don’t remember exactly how it went, but it was more about how much content I had, and how much coverage I wanted on that content, than whether or not I would get it.
I can have compassion for people who experienced loss, but still feel that they should have better protected themself.
This was entirely property damage, there was no one hurt, no one killed. It sucks for them, but that’s all this was, was stuff.
So yes, when the loss is of stuff, then discussing how to best protect oneself from the loss of stuff is entirely appropriate, IMHO.
Well, for one thing, some people made a beeline for the GoFundMe solution.
If I was King there would be one kind of insurance available by law and required to be maintained by everyone by law: cover absolutely everything at replacement cost for absolutely all perils. And similarly cover all liabilities of all kinds. Your only option is how much deductible (= self-insurance) to carry, and how much top-up cover to carry over the legal minimums that would be a) realistic to protect the assets of a 50th (75th?) percentile American, and b) fully indexed for inflation.
Right now the industry essentially competes on two factors: the ability to sell you less cover than you realize, and the ability to pay out less well than they should, whether through low-balling, or more frequently, obstruction.
I envision something more like a variation on the Aussie motor vehicle accident insurance scheme. As I understand it from various posts here, it’s simply a tax that everyone pays that pays for all the consequences of all the accidents. Accidents are simply seen as a national “cost of doing business” for having national motor transport. The society-wide enforcement mechanism for careful driving isn’t fear of high insurance premiums after you crash, but rather police action such as fines, jail time, or suspension or revocation of licenses.
I agree! What a horrible thing to have happened. To me, the issue is the bratty kids that felt they had the right to destroy someone else’s property.
Mumbles. Looks down at feet. Sorry ThelmaLou.
Has there been any additional information about how old they were? The original story just says “children”.
Liability insurance for loss and harm you cause to others, sure.
But why on earth do you think I should be obliged to pay whatever price is available to insure for losses to my own property? Perhaps what you’re getting at is that there should be better regulation to ensure that insurers cannot hide unreasonable exclusions in the fine print. Again, fine. But this kind of regulation already exists, may not be perfect, but I think is generally pretty good.
There’s no reasonable excuse for not knowing whether your policy covers contents at all. Restricting other people from making rational economic decisions is not an appropriate solution for the carelessness or foolishness of some. I have never seen a homeowner polcy where the amount of contents coverage was not displayed prominently as one of the few large print items on a summary page. It’s not like this kind of thing is buried and hidden from the customer.
I’d have to assume at least teens. I don’t see how someone under 12 or 13 could do that much damage.