Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know quite a few people who self insure. They are all wealthy and live in multi-million dollar homes. I guess, they’ll be fine losing the money.

Seems fine for the truly wealthy, but for the average middle class or UMC even, it doesn’t seem worth the risk to me.

+1. I can't imagine not having homeowners' insurance, even though I hope to never make a claim.

And sure for the truly wealthy, go ahead and don't insure, but even for them, someone with a $40M home likely doesn't want to not insure it, because they know that would not be a smart choice.

Worth ~$35M. 2 homes are worth $6M. Sure we could afford to replace one if it was destroyed along with the contents, but it seems silly not to pay the $5-6K/year to insure them with a higher deductible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tonight I learned that a family friend doesn’t have homeowners insurance. They own their home outright so it’s not required.
This is the first time someone know irl has disclosed this. I’m shocked. It seems like such a risky way to live.
I’m curious if anyone on here knows someone like this, or is this way themselves.

Yes, it is definately a very risky way to live. A fire, water damage, storm damage, etc is often out of your control. And could lead to total destruction, besides the land/foundation. Also, the contents of the home can be a lot. Ours is well over $350K of belongings when you include artwork, and contents.

We have homeowners for major disasters. Wouldnt' file a claim unless it was $30-50k+ of damages. But if we had that, I'd want insurance to payout

The contents of your home are not worth as much as you think they are. Perhaps to you.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like a maga thing to do.

LOL...TDS is strong on DCUM

Anonymous wrote:You can't have umbrella insurance without homeowners, and I want umbrella to have access to insurance company lawyers if someone ever sues me for some fall or other accident. That is my bigger fear than my house burning down.

+1 This! My concern is liability as well.

Anonymous wrote:In my circle of friends, I know one who's home burned down in an electrical fire, one who's home burned down due to a bunch of 10 year olds playing with matches, 2 who had trees fall on their home, and one who's neighbor's tree fell on their home (that's still on you, not the neighbor). I guess the moral is, do not be friends with me. jk

All had homeowners insurance, and all rebuilt. The one who's neighbor 10 year olds burned down their house moved after rebuilding

If a neighbor's tree falls on your house, they could be liable if they were negligent in maintaining the tree, i.e. the tree was dead, diseased, or otherwise hazardous and your neighbor failed to take reasonable steps to remedy the situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t have homeowners insurance. It is priced based on average risk, plus a profit margin for the company. I am much more careful than the average person - always clean the dryer lint etc - so my house is much less likely to be damaged than the average person’s house. So it would be a net negative for me to purchase i.

You’re an idiot. Wait till a healthy tree falls over in a freak storm, which we had inspected every year. Hope you’ve got $65k for that—the amount we got from insurance. It didn’t cover the $6K we also paid to take the tree trunk down because insurance doesn’t care about that. They only covered the branch that hit the house removal.

You’re supposed have enough common sense to trim down or remove any trees that could reach your house if they happened to fall (which they do, quite often, healthy or not). I cringe any time I see a million dollar house closely surrounded by 50 foot trees. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure…Prepare for the worst, hope for the best…yadda, yadda

You aren’t able to handle the basics of homeownership, so of course you need homeowners insurance to spread the risk. PP considers what could happen, takes steps to prevent it, and is then rewarded via the risk.

Obviously you don't live in DC, loser. Look around. You can't take down trees willy nilly, or you'll rightfully pay a fine.

Did you know it takes decades for a tree to reach full height? The tree(s) obviously existed when the home was purchased. Very similar to buying a home next to an airport, then immediately complaining about airplane noise. Even worse is when a homeowner plants a future problem tree themselves, and is proud to have done it! Silly mistakes like these are why insurance premiums are sky-high and continue to grow. And insurance companies will gleefully let homeowners do it, charge them accordingly, and still print money after paying claims since they manage the risk so well…but mostly profit because we all end up paying more since that’s how insurance works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t have homeowners insurance. It is priced based on average risk, plus a profit margin for the company. I am much more careful than the average person - always clean the dryer lint etc - so my house is much less likely to be damaged than the average person’s house. So it would be a net negative for me to purchase i.

You’re an idiot. Wait till a healthy tree falls over in a freak storm, which we had inspected every year. Hope you’ve got $65k for that—the amount we got from insurance. It didn’t cover the $6K we also paid to take the tree trunk down because insurance doesn’t care about that. They only covered the branch that hit the house removal.

You’re supposed have enough common sense to trim down or remove any trees that could reach your house if they happened to fall (which they do, quite often, healthy or not). I cringe any time I see a million dollar house closely surrounded by 50 foot trees. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure…Prepare for the worst, hope for the best…yadda, yadda

You aren’t able to handle the basics of homeownership, so of course you need homeowners insurance to spread the risk. PP considers what could happen, takes steps to prevent it, and is then rewarded via the risk.

I'm pp and just thinking about this. It's like those tacky farm houses out in the country that don't have any legacy trees around them. Cringe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t have homeowners insurance. It is priced based on average risk, plus a profit margin for the company. I am much more careful than the average person - always clean the dryer lint etc - so my house is much less likely to be damaged than the average person’s house. So it would be a net negative for me to purchase i.

You’re an idiot. Wait till a healthy tree falls over in a freak storm, which we had inspected every year. Hope you’ve got $65k for that—the amount we got from insurance. It didn’t cover the $6K we also paid to take the tree trunk down because insurance doesn’t care about that. They only covered the branch that hit the house removal.

You’re supposed have enough common sense to trim down or remove any trees that could reach your house if they happened to fall (which they do, quite often, healthy or not). I cringe any time I see a million dollar house closely surrounded by 50 foot trees. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure…Prepare for the worst, hope for the best…yadda, yadda

You aren’t able to handle the basics of homeownership, so of course you need homeowners insurance to spread the risk. PP considers what could happen, takes steps to prevent it, and is then rewarded via the risk.

Obviously you don't live in DC, loser. Look around. You can't take down trees willy nilly, or you'll rightfully pay a fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t have homeowners insurance. It is priced based on average risk, plus a profit margin for the company. I am much more careful than the average person - always clean the dryer lint etc - so my house is much less likely to be damaged than the average person’s house. So it would be a net negative for me to purchase i.

You’re an idiot. Wait till a healthy tree falls over in a freak storm, which we had inspected every year. Hope you’ve got $65k for that—the amount we got from insurance. It didn’t cover the $6K we also paid to take the tree trunk down because insurance doesn’t care about that. They only covered the branch that hit the house removal.

You’re supposed have enough common sense to trim down or remove any trees that could reach your house if they happened to fall (which they do, quite often, healthy or not). I cringe any time I see a million dollar house closely surrounded by 50 foot trees. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure…Prepare for the worst, hope for the best…yadda, yadda

You aren’t able to handle the basics of homeownership, so of course you need homeowners insurance to spread the risk. PP considers what could happen, takes steps to prevent it, and is then rewarded via the risk.

With this admin denying that climate change exists, ya'll are fools. Or at least fill your vacation house with second-hand junk furniture.

I've paid in ~$60K over 22 years in a high deductible plan, and just got a payout larger than that due to a freak storm.

Serious question - how much are you guys paying for homeowners' insurance? Not you guys in CA and FL, but in the DMV. Mine is a fraction of what I pay in real estate taxes in Arlington. It did go up by $600 last year, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know quite a few people who self insure. They are all wealthy and live in multi-million dollar homes. I guess, they’ll be fine losing the money.

That’s as stupid as self insuring medical. Multi-million dollar houses are no longer rare and I can’t imagine a financially savvy person not buying homeowner’s insurance.

Only the structure is insurable. The land is not. My parents self-insured a small cottage yards from the ocean because almost all of the value was in the land, not the old shoebox house with sky high insurance costs due to environmental risks.

+1. I have a relative that does the same. Insurance would cost thousands per year, if they could get it at all. So they self-insure and pay out of pocket for any repairs they can’t do themselves, which are actually very few.

If you diligently save, you eventually will get to a point where it makes financial sense to self-insure. Sure, losing one’s house would be catastrophic but there’s money in the bank to rebuild it. Remember, the land/lot is where all the value is. The chances of a 100% loss are also extremely small, especially if you take lots of precautions and don’t have fire hazards all over your house. Same for storm-proofing windows, doors and the roof down south. My southwest FL family don’t carry home/fire/flood insurance as the premiums are exorbitant after the two most recent Gulf hurricanes. They’ve instead used the insurance premiums they would have paid to instead turn their home into an almost hurricane-proof fortress.

As for being (overly) cautious…my mother, who had two siblings lose their homes to fire, keeps absolutely nothing plugged into an electrical outlet except when she’s using it. The only things plugged in 24/7 are the refrigerator and deep freezer. And this is crazy, but she also turns off the main breaker in the electrical panel box every time she leaves and no one else will be home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know quite a few people who self insure. They are all wealthy and live in multi-million dollar homes. I guess, they’ll be fine losing the money.

That’s as stupid as self insuring medical. Multi-million dollar houses are no longer rare and I can’t imagine a financially savvy person not buying homeowner’s insurance.

Only the structure is insurable. The land is not. My parents self-insured a small cottage yards from the ocean because almost all of the value was in the land, not the old shoebox house with sky high insurance costs due to environmental risks.

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely idiotic to do this unless you are very wealthy.

We know a ton of people in SWFL who don’t insure, but they are also stupid wealthy and could pay cash to rebuild their house 100x over. For the rest of us it’s too much of a risk.