Not absolute confirmation of what would have happened in my case (for any insurance investigators reading this I don’t actually own a tramapoline 
). But thislink says:
There is no “desire” about it. I DON’T GET THE HOUSE UNLESS I PROVIDE A COPY OF MY PROOF LIABILTY INSURANCE.
As I said there some perfectly reasonable things (and in some places having a trampoline is one of them) that make you UNINSURABLE. That effectively BANS
private citizens from owning them as effectively as the government making them illegal.
um, no. the insurance company is saying “we won’t insure you if you have trampolines in your house” (if they’re even saying that)
and, no, you don’t have to have the insurance to get the house. you have to have the insurance to get the mortgage.
Which for the vast majority of people amounts to the same thing.
no, not the same thing.
no one’s telling you to do anything. if you don’t like what other people will require of you (in order for them to loan you a lot of money) save a little harder and buy a house sans mortgage.
has it occurred to you that requiring the insurer to issue you a policy notwithstanding your riskiness is forcing **them **to do something that they don’t want to do?
has it occurred to you that requiring the mortgage lender to loan you the money notwithstanding their requirements that you provide them some sort of guarantee that their collateral will persist through unforeseen events is forcing **them **to do something that they don’t want to do?
kind of… effectively… saying, that they have no free market choice in the matter?
I never said they should be. The end result is unacceptable. But I’m not sure its the insurance companies fault, or even how to fix it.
Its not exactly the same thing. But for the vast majority of people, the end result is the same as if you had law against it…
Having a trampoline == No house for you
you clearly have a very unconventional notion of a market economy.
actually, you’re entire premise is wrong: you can’t do “whatever I damn well please in that house”. you cede alot of rights to “do whatever you damn well please” when you go hat in hand to a lender and ask for money.
no, sorry.
a law that says “if you own real property you cannot have a trampoline on that property” is not on the same planet of similarity as a private entity saying “i will not give you a mortgage if you have a trampoline on your house”… i have no idea why you think this to be the case.
but hey, here’s a tip from the free market: if you think that so many people are, effectively, being told what to do by “the man” because they can’t get mortgage loans while having a trampoline in their backyard, then feel free to start your own insurance company.
Seems funny to me that that the federal government forced the 55 mph limit by refusing to fund roads with higher speed limits, but that same government requiring you to have insurance that requires you not to have a trampoline in order to get funding does not qualify as force.
As I said I don’t think its necessarily the fault of the insurance company or the mortgage company.
It effectively boils down to fact that you can bankrupted to point of losing your home (and to the point that your insurance company are no longer willing to cover you), when someone voluntarily comes to your private dwelling and, without paying you, voluntarily uses your trampoline and injures themselves.
ok, wait, here’s another scenario where society is, effectively, prohibiting me from doing something
Rumor_Watkins: hey dude, I have some soft, off-grey material that i pulled out of this dryer. give me a hundred bucks for it!
Random person: wtf? is that lint? i’m not giving you one cent for it - in fact, I wouldn’t take it for free. go away. shoo!
Rumor_Watkins: ZOMG. WTF. THE GOVERNMENT IS PROHIBITING ME FROM CHANGING MY PILE OF LINT FOR A C-NOTE!
governments don’t require you to have insurance, i have no clue why you think this is the case.
Correct. Buy a house outright, for cash. But since you can’t do that, you need to concede certain aspects of your “my castle” sovereignty away. They won’t lend you money unless you seem like a good risk. In their experience, trampolines make you a bad risk. If you truly want to have a home in which you can do what you damn well please, the first step is not borrowing money to get that home.
oh, i get it. this was a really bad job at attempting to change the topic of discussion to how the big, bad lawyers are preventing you from having a trampoline in your property.
Actually that was my point all along. I never blamed the mortgage company or the insurance company. If you look at my original post in this thread:
Neither do I think that all civil law suits are attempts by evil lawyers to take away my rights. I’m quite glad I have the right to sue if I am wronged. But it has clearly gone to far in the US when someone can sue me (and win) for something that happened after voluntarily coming to my private dwelling and voluntarily partaking in an activity they knew to be hazardous, and for which I received no payment.
i’d want that guy’s lawyer. and i’d also like santa claus to visit me every Christmas eve, too.
No lawsuit would win with the facts you just laid out.
A quick google turned up numerous examples of this. Not to mention that fact that if that WASN’T the case why the hell do insurance companies have such a problem with trampolines!
This one does not say the result (but the fact it reach court means of course they will be having hefty legal bills whatever the result):
This one got as far as the appeals court before the defendants lost (which again would have cost I’m more than enough to put anyone into bankruptcy)
http://www.wnewsj.com/main.asp?SectionID=49&SubSectionID=156&ArticleID=155068&TM=29559.66
ok so you give me a case in which they didn’t win to refute my position that a lawsuit under the facts you laid out was unwinnable? cute.
and the first lawsuit you cited. the entire point of the lawsuit is that she claims SHE DIDN’T KNOW OF THE RISKS. she was a minor when it happened. maybe the adult, who we tend to charge with greater responsibility in society, should have known that he shoulndt’ve been bouncing on the thing with the girl at the same time, huh?
i’m done with your bait and switch argument, anyways.
I think this is getting a little off topic…anything more about the kid thing to be said?