Insurance company wont salary up...?
My parents were away on holiday for something like 4 months, during this time the water container in the attic burst a pipe and have caved contained by the whole middle roof division of the house, total disaster,now the insurance company say it wont pay up(UK) as they be away too long!
I am sure they have trial advise but this purely seems pretty bizarre to me...?
Answers: They purely need to preserve challenging the edict and threaten the insurers with legitimate action. They will other refuse a claim similar to this in the first instance surrounded by the hope the claim will be dropped as obviously it will cost them. I guarantee if the ruling is challenged your parents will win.
spawn sure in the small print
some policies state if your away for more that a few weeks you must inform insurers and adjectives water systems should be drained down so that it reduce the risk of flooding
Insurance company is bluffing. It would have burst whether the house be occupied or not. Tell them you are taking Legal Advice on the event.
Was anyone living in the home while they be gone? Was heat maintain in the building while they be gone?
If not, could be a problem.
In the US, if a property is empty/unoccupied for 30+ days and/or heat be not maintained it can affect your coverage.
I suspect your parents policy have some type of language going on for the property being forsaken or heat not mortal maintained and this is the defence.
I'm sorry but it is very possible that the policy does not cover this set of circumstances, read the policy scarcely before you do anything, the probability are there will be a clause limiting the time that the property can be unoccupied in need notifying the insurance company.
The judgment for this is unoccupied properties have complex risks of such as burst pipes because the heat is rotten, also the risk of burglary is higher so the policies will not cover buildings that hold been unoccupied too long.
I know this will be a disappointment to you, but they be right to reject the claim. Burst pipes aren't covered if the building is left unoccupied for a infallible period of time, commonly 30 or 60 days. The policy wording booklet will report you the exact length of time. If you've lost the policy booklet you will probably be able to find a unknown one on the insurer's website.
The exclusion exists because if a home is left unoccupied for a long time the risk of weaken is higher - for example near will be no heating to melt up the pipes.
I am on Medicaid. Can I buy a house and maintain it?
I cannot lose my medicaid but I would like to buy a house next to little money that I have for a down costs on a house. Will I still receive Medicaid if I buy one?Answers: If you are on medicaid it's because you are considered poor. In order to qualify - your assets enjoy to be next to zilch.
You would have to ask the medicaid bureau how purchasing a house would affect your benefits.
Whatever money you have must be below the guidelines for assets to keep your medicaid. If you qualify (legally) for medicaid, you do not hold the assets necessary to buy and allege a house.Besides mortgage, there are property taxes, maintanence (e.g. plumbing, heat repair) and with little downpayment, P.M.I.
My counsel is, get a situation that can get you, and hold you off medicaid. Then salvage when you can and when you are in a better financial position, look into buying a house. Research what it take to buy and maintain a house previously you jump into such a big ruling. The foreclosure fiasco should be some indication that someone in your situation have no business buying a house.
First it would depend on the type of medicaid and why you have it. Every type of medicaid have different requirements. There are many citizens who have medicaid and own their homes, including my mother and my father-in-law. You involve to speak with your caseworker roughly your financial situation and the affect on your medicaid.
How safe is my soc sec pension?
Answers: Safe from what?
I'm 42, and I sure as heck am NOT counting on any benefits in my retirement. In the USA, social security is a Ponzi scheme - there isn't any MONEY in a seperate account, ya know? And it takes three workers paying in now, for each person's benefits. And in another 10 years, the ratio will be down to 2 workers. Eventually, like all Ponzi schemes, it's going to have to collapse. It's a mathmatical certainty. You just can't keep paying out more than you're taking in, and there's a finite limit to how high you can raise workers' taxes before they decide to quit because it's not worth it to work.
If you are drawing from it now, you should be fine, otherwise.
I just received my statement from the SSA today and it even states right in their document that by 2041 they will be taking in only 75% of what they estimate they need to pay out. It won't take long for it to dry up and fade away.
Right your representative/senator and let them know you want them to do something about this. Make sure to include that you vote and want this figured out before the SSA is bankrupt.
Not safe at all if you are middle aged or yournder and at the rate the US is spending money (rebate checks going to everyone) you can kiss your Soc Sec good by.