Topic: LA Wildfires….. |
---|
21. Author: Dandy Warhol Date: Sat 11th Jan 2025. 07:49 NMCmassive, Sat 11 Jan 01:18 Great way to clear an area for prime land use. I don`t wanna go down like disco. Reply |
22. Author: Dave_1885 Date: Sat 11th Jan 2025. 08:19 NMCmassive, Sat 11 Jan 01:18 You have to remember that the Palisades area is one of the most affluent in LA though - there was a guy on the news the other day stating that the majority of the homes in the area cost 20 to 30 Million dollars and the average price is 5 Million. Mot sure about the areas with the other fires though mind you. Reply |
23. Author: Andrew283 Date: Sat 11th Jan 2025. 09:14 Time to go Luigi on Insurance providers. Time to make them scared Reply |
24. Author: jake89 Date: Sat 11th Jan 2025. 09:49 There`s a difference between not insuring someone, or insuring by having exclusions, and cancelling a policy when it becomes apparent you might have to pay out. I`m sure many in LA won`t have insurance and can afford to take the risk, but there will be plenty who will be screwed by these scummy insurance companies. It seems there`s been a ruling made in LA to prevent them doing this now. Reply |
25. Author: LochgellyAlbert Date: Sat 11th Jan 2025. 10:14 Insurance companies will make any excuse not to pay out, I remember when I was in the Fire Service that they complained we were causing too much damage to cars when cutting out casualties!🤬🚒 Reply |
26. Author: DunfyDave Date: Sat 11th Jan 2025. 10:25 LochgellyAlbert, Sat 11 Jan 10:14 ^^^^ WOW 😳 DunfyDave Reply |
27. Author: NMCmassive Date: Sat 11th Jan 2025. 18:11 There’s a mixture of issues. As someone pointed out earlier there are areas that are amongst the richest in the country but it every area affected is and not every house in those area is owned by someone rich nor is it a rich persons house ( like a mansion or something) Over the last couple of years there is growing complaints about the price of insurance and the amount of insurance policy that were cancelled or later changed to not include fire/flood coverage. If we are talking about 70% of properties in an area not being insured then there is obviously an issue there - whether it’s caused by insurance companies or other factors I wouldn’t claim to know about but i think it’s deeper than insurance companies just being ar53 holes although, insurance companies can definitely be ar53 holes when you need them COYP Reply |
28. Author: The One Who Knocks Date: Sat 11th Jan 2025. 18:22 My understanding is that back in July some insurance companies did stop covering properties in the area but every resident would have still been able to access a insurer of last resort through California`s FAIR scheme. However this would have only provided basic cover against fire which might have made it less attractive for some high end properties. And although my eyes were open They just might as well be closed Reply |
29. Author: ipswichpar Date: Sat 11th Jan 2025. 22:00 . Post Edited (Sat 11 Jan 22:03) Reply |
30. Author: veteraneastender Date: Sun 12th Jan 2025. 09:43 California has extensive forested areas and tragically is no stranger to the dangers of wildfires. Usually these occur in the northern more densely wooded parts of the state, rather than the heavily populated main urban locations. When negative conditions such as dry countryside and high winds prevail a worst case scenario can evolve. Post Edited (Sun 12 Jan 09:44) Reply |
31. Author: Luxembourg Par Date: Tue 14th Jan 2025. 10:49 LochgellyAlbert, Sat 11 Jan 10:14 Where/when Lochgelly? My old man was in Fire Service in Dunfermline & Rosyth for many years, 1975-1995 or thereabouts. Reply |
32. Author: LochgellyAlbert Date: Tue 14th Jan 2025. 12:37 Luxembourg Par, Tue 14 Jan 10:49 I will know him then! (73-2000) Think it was when I was at Lochgelly Fire Station when we had the ET, early 80s!🤔 Reply |
33. Author: NMCmassive Date: Tue 14th Jan 2025. 22:27 LochgellyAlbert, Tue 14 Jan 12:37 ET? Did he make it home? COYP Reply |
34. Author: Bletchley_Par Date: Fri 24th Jan 2025. 00:34 Our fleet insurance provider has called me to say they will not insure our vans being on the road tomorrow between 7am to 10pm. Not that they were going to be anyway given the forecast, but yeah, it shows the control insurance companies can leverage. Reply |
35. Author: Dave_1885 Date: Fri 24th Jan 2025. 04:05 Bletchley_Par, Fri 24 Jan 00:34 Sensible from insurance company. Make sure that they don’t need to pay out for any idiot that wants to go out during a major storm. Reply |
36. Author: NMCmassive Date: Sat 25th Jan 2025. 19:01 Bletchley_Par, Fri 24 Jan 00:34 Will they cover a parked van? Or would they have covered a parked van? COYP Post Edited (Sat 25 Jan 19:02) Reply |
37. Author: Bletchley_Par Date: Sun 26th Jan 2025. 20:08 Topic Originator: NMCmassive like If a vehicle was parked offsite it was covered, but the vehicles parked onsite are covered by a different section of the policy. They just didn`t want us driving them. Reply |
38. Author: NMCmassive Date: Sun 26th Jan 2025. 23:04 Bletchley_Par, Sun 26 Jan 20:08 Fair enough. If anything at least they gave notice they couldn’t insure any vans that were being driven due to the weather COYP Reply |
39. Author: Bletchley_Par Date: Mon 27th Jan 2025. 21:38 You can really see what people even just wishing to clear out their lots are up against a local government who want to make people wait 18 months for a permit to clear their property. It`s great to see the guy in the black hat speaking up for the residents who are homeless and calling out local government for chasing away insurance companies. [youtube]3LFmE0TmvyM[/youtube] And here is the same guy exposing DEI Mayor of LA Karen Bass lying about residents of the Palisades being able to clear out their lots [youtube]l_IREnqjttw[/youtube] Post Edited (Mon 27 Jan 21:43) Reply |
40. Author: NMCmassive Date: Mon 27th Jan 2025. 22:21 Bletchley_Par, Mon 27 Jan 21:38 I actually seen them over the weekend. I don’t agree with quite a lot of what he says but when you look at the other side of the debate, it’s no wonder he got back in. COYP Reply |