• GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    If your insurance only covers 50% of the property value it is essentially useless.

    This is absolutely insane.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      50% of a seven-figure number is still at least a six-figure number. Very useful, definitely not essentially useless. If you disagree, please give me six figures, which you apparently don’t need, so I can test the theory.

      • GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah I’m sure every home destroyed was worth over a million. That’s just a straw man.

        My home insurance in the UK covers the full cost of tearing down and rebuilding if the house is damaged beyond repair. As it bloody should.

      • nomous@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Ah so just purchase more insurance for the things the insurance I already pay for doesn’t cover?

        • capital_sniff@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          Absolutely. It is also never a bad idea to have at least 6 months in expenses saved up in cash for emergencies. And another 10 thousand to keep an attorney on retainer.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      My in-laws learned this the hard way after a total loss fire. Their insurance covered the current value of the house, not the cost to move/replace it in a total loss scenario, so now they have a big mortgage for their new house when the old one was nearly entirely paid off