Member 52301
- Messages
- 4,212
- Reactions
- 6,648
Crikey! I used to own those movies and watched them many, many times!
Thanks for the clip.
Cate
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I get that and understand. But if there were more personal and financial responsibilities, our courts and police would operate differently. Not hating on police because they are operating under the rules. It's the rules that screw the tax payers.He was given $5000, which probably was determined based on his insurance deductible. He most certainly filed an insurance claim.
I'd venture to say that a bunch of those damages were ordered as restitution from the bad guy. The owner will never see it, but the perp is truly the one at fault.
I get that and understand. But if there were more personal and financial responsibilities, our courts and police would operate differently. Not hating on police because they are operating under the rules. It's the rules that screw the tax payers.
KJ,
Not only pay those premiums, don't buy the least coverage legal.
Buy well over the limit and no I don't sell insurance.
Buying more coverage than is legally necessary does not (surprisingly) cost much more than the bare minimum.
Offered $5,000 from city to help rental, insurance gave out close to $400,000 which didn't cover cost of tearing down the house and building new one. They also did damage to the house next door and they received $2,000, for $70,000 in damages.He was given $5000, which probably was determined based on his insurance deductible. He most certainly filed an insurance claim.
I'd venture to say that a bunch of those damages were ordered as restitution from the bad guy. The owner will never see it, but the perp is truly the one at fault.
Offered $5,000 from city to help rental, insurance gave out close to $400,000 which didn't cover cost of tearing down the house and building new one. They also did damage to the house next door and they received $2,000, for $70,000 in damages.
The house in question the shoplifter was hiding in was condemned.
CITY offered $5,000 for rental assistance, insurance the homeowner had paid over $300,00zInsurance....
CITY offered $5,000 for rental assistance, insurance the homeowner had paid over $300,00z
City offered it, man sued. Which is how the court case came about.They paid? Great! Case closed.
City offered it, man sued. Which is how the court case came about.
No, the article said the city offered $5,000, not the insurance.They as in insurance.
$5,000 isn't bubblegum when we're talking about home repair. That MIGHT have covered cleaning up the mess before the repair.No, the article said the city offered $5,000, not the insurance.
The insurance paid higher, but did not cover tearing down the condemned house and rebuilding.
No, the article said the city offered $5,000, not the insurance.
The insurance paid higher, but did not cover tearing down the condemned house and rebuilding.
If you don't mind me asking, which company were you with? I'm currently looking at upping my coverage and I want to go with someone who will give me what I need without costing a fortune.^ This is really good advice. Some years back I sat down and really went over our coverage. Life was fine, but auto and home were seriously under-covered and adjusted. The home owner's in particular had things not covered or covered inadequately, so the necessary riders were added. We also invested in umbrella insurance on top of that because of all the sue happy morons out there. As you mentioned, it was surprisingly affordable. (And I'm not an insurance salesman either; my occupational field totally unrelated.)