Electric company fried my PC?
I rent out my house. On the power pole across the street a splice pulled apart on the wire coming from the transformer to the house. This cause a surge that fried the mother board on my tenant's PC. Estimated replacement cost is $700.00 . My homeowner's insurance policy has a $1000.00 deductible, so they won't retribution, and I'm not going to pay. What can we expect from the utility, if my tenant files a claim or complaint beside them? Do they have a standard procedure for dealing beside this kind of problem?Answers: The electric company's vocabulary for offering the service almost certainly specifically state they're not responsible for this.
Your homeowners' policy probably does too, since you don't live in that...When we were renting out our house within was no coverage available to us as landlords that covered tenants' personal property, that's what renters' insurance is for.
Renter is out of luck.
You can't expect to take anything.
You should have bought a surge protector.
YOUR homeowners policy covers your owner settled home - which it isn't. Your dwelling fire policy doesn't cover stuff owned by your tenant.
Your tenant's renters insurance policy would be the one to cover it.
The utility company isn't going to pay anything, even if the tenant files or complains. They aren't responsible, spell. If this guy had a surge protector, it most imagined wouldn't have happen.
Your tenant is out of luck. Now go chat to your agent, and make sure your home is properly covered, so YOU aren't out of luck if you enjoy a building or liability claim.
it happens adjectives the time, and they pay regularly. notify the rag, attorney general, town council, senator, congressman and your electric company president that you will not be denied, upon nonpayment. receive holy hell for them.
it is their fault and they know it. perfect luck.
Your homeowners insurance will not pay for tenant's belongings. Once a tenant moves into your house, your policy become a Dwelling policy covering only the structure itself.
Your tenant have the responsiblity to get renter's insurance to cover his belongings, which Im assuming he did not due. He requirements renter's insurance - say the house burned down tomorrow. Dwelling/Fire policy will rate you for the structure but not for his belongings. If he has renter's insurance, he will be covered for his belongings. If he does not, next he is just out adjectives $ and will have to replace himself.
I doubt going to the electric company will resolve within them paying for any damage. Electrical surge's are out of their control - its basically a part of electricity. Your tenant should own a surge protector attached to his computer between the electrical plug & the house. If he did, and the surge fried the surge protector as well as his computer, he can christen the mfg of the surge protector. They usually gaurantee their protectors to protect your computer up to X,000 dollars. Of course they will probably have him transport in the fried surge protector as proof. If he chose not to purchase a $25 dollar surge protector to protect his expensive computer, next that was his abandon.
Speak to your insurance agent. Every state has different law. Speak to your tenant and stress to him how important it is that he get renter's insurance to cover his belongings (including his computer).
Your homeowner's insurance isn't going to cover possessions owned by the tenant. It's the tenantresponsibility to have renter's insurance for such situations. Standard procedure is to deny such claims, since it's subsequent to impossible to prove that this surge caused the issue involved.
Your tenant is on his/her own on this one. (Apparently your tenant have never heard of a point surge suppressor ?)
Your tenant should have a renters policy to cover his belongings.
If does not own a renters policy - it's his loss. Not your responsibility. If he did not purchase a renters policy then he made the choice that if his property be damaged he would hold the loss himself.
Your landlord policy most potential would not cover his contents/ property.
The motherboard is your tenants problem - not yours. He can folder with the utility company and do business with them.
National Insurance Number?
I've just turned 16 and want to start a weekend chore to pay (in part) for a trip to New York contained by December. Apparently, I can only return with a job if I own a National Insurance Number. Is this true? If so, how do I get one and how long will it nick to arrive? Also, I am in the UK, around Harringey.Answers: You'll bring a national insurance card sent to you within the subsequent few weeks, this will have your number on the front.
u shud attain one on or a bit before u turn 16
i suggest they just distribute it, because they no how old u are
ask your local council i wud guess
Ring Inland Revenue and ask them around your card. They may even give you your NI number. Normaly they do transport you the card in the post.
What you could do is vist your local Jobcentre Plus or DWP Office.
You should already hold received it by now, It is allocated shortly after birth and your card usually issued contained by time for your 16th birthday. Just pop round to your local dwp office /job central part with some proof of your identity ( your passport should be fine) explain what you want and yopu needed it to draw from a job and i am sure they will write it down for you and that should be permitted for your job.
Feebow- a national insurance number have nothig to do with the employer man employed. they want it to make sure she starts paying national insurance of she earn enough, and , more importatly to prove she can leagally be employed contained by this country
Have a look at the DWP website, which sets out the process and gives contact handset number etc:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/lifeevent/benefits...
What should we do about the cost of health care?
Answers: Lobby the government to move to a single payer system and focus on preventative care. Get everyone on board with living healthier lives. Offer incentives to employers to encourage and help their employees have the time to stay in shape. I'm 34 and I've noticed a steady decrease in the quality and availability of care while the costs continue to climb. It's getting harder and harder to get adequate preventative care. Premiums are high. Copays are high. Taking time off of work costs money as well and is not always possible. The answer: it's a problem for a lot of people. Lobby the government to get them to do something so we can get what we need at a reasonable cost. Health insurance companies are ruining our healthcare system because they want higher and higher profits. It's at our expense.
Who's "we"?
I'm ok with the health care system the way it is.
*note, health care system means, being able to get to a doctor or hospital when you need to, not to be confused with HEALTH INSURANCE, which is, having someone else pay for it.*
To summarize the sensible plan again, which should be reviewed here (and it is the PDF, NOT the blurb): http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.htm...
It offers ALL Americans a catastrophic health care package for an AFFORDABLE price.
Key points:
ALL Americans are eligible (and yes, there would be the traditional breakdowns into categories by age, sex, medical condition so that accurate premiums could be offered).
It is a CHOICE, not mandated with scare tactics and punishment—right now the UNINSURABLE are screwed again with things like “Must have insurance or we’ll fine you.” How about making a legit plan available to all before dumping on the victim again?
Catastrophic health care package is ALL that ANYONE NEEDS. The actual purpose of insurance is to share risk so you avoid bankruptcy. This is NOT done at all these days. First, over half of all bankruptcies are for medical bills and most of those folks were insured. Thus the current system clearly does NOT work. Second, this stupid “if you’ve got a nice policy and a sniffle, stop by the doc’s and others will pay for it” runs up medical costs for NO good reason at all. Resources are wasted every day. IF people had to pay for their tendency towards hypochondria or refusal to follow basic sensible provisions, they’d be more likely to change their behavior.
AFFORDABLE is key. Insurance is NOT now affordable and the UHC story helps shed light on why that is. This plan would use a sliding-scale for the premium AND the co-pays so that those who really are not making much money (be they students or folks just starting out in the work force or the retired or disabled) would not pay more than they can afford. There would be a REAL limit on out-of-pocket NECESSARY medical expenditures as well.
Other key plan points:
There would be one physical with follow-up visit per year as well as one ER visit IF NEEDED (how to prevent ER abuse is covered) for reasonable co-pays.
The point here:
Prevention is ALWAYS cheaper than waiting for a problem to develop. It is also the moral approach to medical care. By getting folks in annually we’d be able to save a lot of lives and improve peoples’ productivity. We could also review meds (or if they’re needed), keep people immunized appropriately, answer questions about nutrition and more, and have a baseline of info should the person be in an accident or fall ill. Again, with a reasonable co-pay, there is now NO good reason for folks not to see the doctor. The follow-up makes sense for anyone who HAS a medical issue. If someone came through with flying colors, he would not even need to use that follow-up. Not everyone needs the ER, but it would be sensible IF needed to not leave people SOL. This logical plan would address ALL the legitimate needs of probably 80% of the population.
Another key plan point:
Necessary medications are covered as well as NO caps on necessary medical treatments.
Right now, we have BS like the “donut hole” of Medicare. This would be eliminated as would all fertility treatments, ED med coverage, and anything else which is not NECESSARY. This does not prevent people from receiving treatment for such things—let them find an insurance plan (this plan doesn’t stop others from being offered) or pay for it themselves, but there is no justification to make the taxpayer help someone have kids or sex. There is a reasonable reason for people on insurance to help those with cancer, strokes, heart disease, diabetes, etc. as this is far beyond a quality of life issue and goes to the heart of life and death. This is the same rationale for ending caps on legitimate procedures, like bone marrow transplants, which are quite expensive. Too often now a plan lies and claims something is covered, but by shunting off $25-250K on the patient to pay, that’s NOT a covered item in a rational person’s book.
Funding is described and it resolves another abuse of the taxpayer.