Home     Display     HandyHints

REVIEW of Money 18

To have or not to have - that's the question

We often hear tales of folk losing prized possessions, even the family home as a result of some disaster such as fire or flood. But was the property insured? If not, the loss is that much greater, and very likely the oversight is cause for regret. Unfortunately, although insurance would seem the advisable way to go, not everyone can afford it; and some who can are too frugal to part with their money and don't bother. Cost is obviously the guiding factor and if the outlay for insurance is simply beyond the budget, the risk of potential loss has to be accepted with fingers crossed. However, when the expense of premiums can be tolerated, taking out the relevant policies is less a case of can we afford to; it is more about can we afford not to?

Aside from ensuring that the value of lost personal items can be recouped, there is also the matter of someone else's property or health. Damage to another vehicle in a road accident can amount to thousands of dollars; in a multi-car pile-up it can be many times that; and if it can be proved to be your fault, guess who will have to foot the bill? Then there's the responsibility of a rented property. Although the building itself would be covered by the owner's insurance, the tenant's belongings and furniture are solely their affair. Should any fittings or structural features be damaged, whether by accident or as a result of malicious intent, whoever's name is on the lease will be required to pay.

There are always seemingly good reasons not to throw money at the insurance companies who are reluctant to give it back; but before you decide to go it alone, see what you might be up for by reading the full article.

To read the complete article or download the PDF of Money 18 click here

Money Fruit Food on plate Spyglass ereader Popcorn

About     Contact

copyright © 2011-2017  All Rights Reserved