Dover Beach (moon.blanched@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) wrote:
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Mr C (camsoccer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) wrote:
>>> On Apr 10, 9:42 pm, Snidely <Snidely....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 10, 6:07 pm, "Jim Beaver" <jumble...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > "Dover Beach" <moon.blanc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> > > variety of companies. I suspect Geico doesn't do Calif.
>>>> > > homeowners so they have some deal to pass it on.
>>>>
>>>> > Heckuva lotta Geico commercials here, though. (SoCal)
>>>>
>>>> But it's for things that move, innit? They may not have the
>>>> proper forms filed with the state insurance commissioner to do
>>>> houses.
>>>
>>> Too high risk for their taste? California: earthquakes,
>>> landslides, wildfires, tidal waves, falling off into the sea,
>>> that kind of thing.
>>>
>>
>> I wonder if California houses are actuarially at greater risk of
>> catastrophes that require replacement or at least major
>> renovation.
>>
>
> They were perfectly happy to consider insuring it as long as it
> was owner-occupied, and the owner a human being rather than a
> trust.
>
I think you should have told them it was owner-occupied and that the
trust occupies the house.
--
Opus the Penguin
I tried showing her the lease agreement but it seems that cats, like
Republicans, are not constrained by the law. - Xho
|
