A question for any F&C company execs that read this.
Why don’t insurance companies STRONGLY push or write into insurance policies that if you have to rebuild a home because of being destroyed by a hurricane/tornado/earthquake or fire that the insurance will only pay out for a home that is built to be proof against such disasters? Those type of homes actually cost the homeowner LESS in the long run. And of course, if one understands actuarial tables, the insurance companies would thereafter be able to charge SMALLER premiums while netting MORE profit.
Just thought I’d inject some LOGIC into the problem.
A question for any F&C company execs that read this.
Why don’t insurance companies STRONGLY push or write into insurance policies that if you have to rebuild a home because of being destroyed by a hurricane/tornado/earthquake or fire that the insurance will only pay out for a home that is built to be proof against such disasters? Those type of homes actually cost the homeowner LESS in the long run. And of course, if one understands actuarial tables, the insurance companies would thereafter be able to charge SMALLER premiums while netting MORE profit.
Just thought I’d inject some LOGIC into the problem.