Relatives who just don't get it

[Posthumane]

My mom was adamant that I get a professional to install them, when all it took was

Step 1: drilling the screws in on the mount and slide the mount into place
Step 2: There is no step 2

That's just too funny. I've never heard of professional blind installers, but I guess that has to exist since most new houses in North America come with things like  this already installed.

]That's a nice reminder to me that life is about choices.  You choose to invest the time and effort into learning new skills, not necessarily to save money (although it might), but also to learn new skills so that you're more self-sufficient and so you understand these things.

I agree with that 100%. A lot of the projects I do probably don't save much money, at least not the first time I do them. In fact, I spend a noticeable amount of money just to experiment with different things.

[zolotiyeruki]

My mom was adamant that I get a professional to install them, when all it took was

Step 1: drilling the screws in on the mount and slide the mount into place
Step 2: There is no step 2

That's just too funny. I've never heard of professional blind installers, but I guess that has to exist since most new houses in North America come with things like  this already installed.

]That's a nice reminder to me that life is about choices.  You choose to invest the time and effort into learning new skills, not necessarily to save money (although it might), but also to learn new skills so that you're more self-sufficient and so you understand these things.

I agree with that 100%. A lot of the projects I do probably don't save much money, at least not the first time I do them. In fact, I spend a noticeable amount of money just to experiment with different things.

When we first moved into our house, we had one of those door-to-door blind companies come by.  We needed (a lot of) blinds, so we let the guy come in and give us a quote.  He seemed genuinely surprised when we told him that we'd install the blinds ourselves, thankyouverymuch.  Because it's really hard to drive a screw in a wall, maybe?

I have a Honda self-propelled lawnmower in my garage.  When I bought it for $50, the blade clutch didn't disengage, and the self-propel was really slow.  After probably $100 worth of parts and several hours of tinkering, almost everything is fixed...except for the bent crankshaft.  So far, my efforts to straighten it (with an 8-lb sledge, and at times a piece of pipe) have proven fruitless.  But boy, do I know how that thing works now!

[mtn]

My mom was adamant that I get a professional to install them, when all it took was

Step 1: drilling the screws in on the mount and slide the mount into place
Step 2: There is no step 2

That's just too funny. I've never heard of professional blind installers, but I guess that has to exist since most new houses in North America come with things like  this already installed.

]That's a nice reminder to me that life is about choices.  You choose to invest the time and effort into learning new skills, not necessarily to save money (although it might), but also to learn new skills so that you're more self-sufficient and so you understand these things.

I agree with that 100%. A lot of the projects I do probably don't save much money, at least not the first time I do them. In fact, I spend a noticeable amount of money just to experiment with different things.

When we first moved into our house, we had one of those door-to-door blind companies come by.  We needed (a lot of) blinds, so we let the guy come in and give us a quote.  He seemed genuinely surprised when we told him that we'd install the blinds ourselves, thankyouverymuch.  Because it's really hard to drive a screw in a wall, maybe?

I have a Honda self-propelled lawnmower in my garage.  When I bought it for $50, the blade clutch didn't disengage, and the self-propel was really slow.  After probably $100 worth of parts and several hours of tinkering, almost everything is fixed...except for the bent crankshaft.  So far, my efforts to straighten it (with an 8-lb sledge, and at times a piece of pipe) have proven fruitless.  But boy, do I know how that thing works now!

Reminds me of when my friend bought a used lawnmower for $25 that wouldn't start. We went to Lowes and bought a spark plug and installed it, and it started right up. He replaced it with a new one this year when he realized that if it wasn't the spark plug that was going it was something else because just about everything on it was made of plastic and it kept breaking.

[gooki]

Our neighborhood has an email group so people can keep in touch, coordinate group discounts on stuff, questions about the HOA, etc.  I'm surprised at how often people ask for recommendations for tradesmen or handymen for doing really simple stuff.  Just a couple months ago, for example, there was a request for a plumber...to install a garbage disposal.  Another asked for an electrician...for an ceiling fan.  Seriously, folks, these things come with illustrated, step-by-step instructions!  Ok, if you're older and lack the strength, then I understand, but these things are not hard!

One of the things that gets up my goat in New Zealand is you (the home owner) are not legally allowed to touch the electrics, plumbing or gas unless you're a registered electrician/plumber.

I can understand the gas part, and sure some people don't take the correct precautions with electrics, but you don't have to ruin it for everyone.

[FIREwoman]

Reminds me of when my friend bought a used lawnmower for $25 that wouldn't start. We went to Lowes and bought a spark plug and installed it, and it started right up. He replaced it with a new one this year when he realized that if it wasn't the spark plug that was going it was something else because just about everything on it was made of plastic and it kept breaking.

i scored a sweet, practically new vacuum several years ago from my boss. her and her hubs witnessed their neighbor tossing it out onto the curb for garbage because it "didn't work anymore". nobody ever bothered to empty the canister. worked just fine.

[jeromedawg]

Reminds me of when my friend bought a used lawnmower for $25 that wouldn't start. We went to Lowes and bought a spark plug and installed it, and it started right up. He replaced it with a new one this year when he realized that if it wasn't the spark plug that was going it was something else because just about everything on it was made of plastic and it kept breaking.

i scored a sweet, practically new vacuum several years ago from my boss. her and her hubs witnessed their neighbor tossing it out onto the curb for garbage because it "didn't work anymore". nobody ever bothered to empty the canister. worked just fine.

Years ago, I found a Tivo or DirecTV DVR box that someone gently placed on top of the garbage pile in a dumpster in my old apartment complex. I grabbed it and fired it up but if I recall it was stuck booting. So I did a factory reset on it and it worked fine again. Ended up flipping it for $100~ on Ebay.

[JAYSLOL]

My parents and I are often in disagreement about self-sufficiency and doing/building/fixing things yourself. There is often a contridiction where, on the one hand they praise the fact that I know how to do a lot of things for myself, but on the other hand discourage me from actually doing it.

My dad was visiting a couple weeks ago and praised the good job I did on rebuilding the railing around my deck. He asked if I had helped from my FIL (who is into woodworking) and I said that no, I did it myself with help from my wife. He was surprised because "it looks like it was done by someone who knows what they're doing." I also pointed out the bench I made with the leftover wood, he kind of ooohed and awed about it and said something along the lines of "well you can do those things because you have skills..."
But then the other day when I was on the phone with him I told him about a pair of oars I was making and he said I really shouldn't be making them and I should just go buy a pair. I told him I wanted to get better at fiberglass work (I was putting fiberglass on the tips of the blades as reinforcement) because I was having a bit of trouble making them look nice, he said "you can't learn everything, you should just let the professionals do these things" and told me I should go see a movie instead.
My mom has similar comments. The other day she was saying that she admires that I'm so handy and can fix things, but anytime something breaks and I say I'm going to try fixing it she explaims something along the lines of "don't bother, just throw it out and buy another one!" and how trying to fix stuff is a waste of time. When they bought us a dishwasher for xmas, they were adamant that I hire a professional to come install it (and deliver it) instead of doing it myself because <something about liability if it leaks>. Even though the all the lines were already there, from our old dishwasher. I ended up picking it up from the store and installing it myself in a couple of hours.

Anyway, they don't seem to see the correlation between doing things yourself, and being good at doing things yourself. They must assume that some people are born with these abilities, and not that they are a result of any kind of practice.

LOL.  That's my wife sometimes.  She always says she wants to fix up a house but when our plumbing breaks she doesn't like me to try to fix it without a plumber :)

[infogoon]

Reminds me of when my friend bought a used lawnmower for $25 that wouldn't start. We went to Lowes and bought a spark plug and installed it, and it started right up. He replaced it with a new one this year when he realized that if it wasn't the spark plug that was going it was something else because just about everything on it was made of plastic and it kept breaking.

I got my lawnmower for $20 from a relative who said she just couldn't get it to keep running. Worked fine when I put more gas in it.

[mtn]

Reminds me of when my friend bought a used lawnmower for $25 that wouldn't start. We went to Lowes and bought a spark plug and installed it, and it started right up. He replaced it with a new one this year when he realized that if it wasn't the spark plug that was going it was something else because just about everything on it was made of plastic and it kept breaking.

i scored a sweet, practically new vacuum several years ago from my boss. her and her hubs witnessed their neighbor tossing it out onto the curb for garbage because it "didn't work anymore". nobody ever bothered to empty the canister. worked just fine.

Back in college I used to find vacuums on the curb. Sometimes they really were broken. Most of the time, you just needed to take it apart and clean it real well and/or replace the belt, which was usually about $5. There wasn't enough profit in it to keep doing it very long, but it provided beer money.

My favorite was when I needed a vacuum for myself. Got on craigslist and found a lady having a “virtual” garage sale. I did a bundle deal, and bought a vacuum that needed a belt, a cheap guitar, and guitar case for $75. Took the guitar without the case to the pawn shop and promptly sold it for $70, then bought a new belt for the vacuum for $5. So for $80 I got a vacuum and a nice guitar case. I used the vacuum for the rest of the year, and as I was using it for the final clean before moving out of my apartment it caught on fire. Still have the guitar case though.

[RetiredAt63]

Darwin award, some "be silly" genes just got removed from the gene pool.

Even at a zoo, any health care on a predator is done carefully, animal anesthetized.  In the wild?!?!?

Obviously those are just guidelines for other people, right? Not for me!

Well those guidelines are obviously waa-aay  too cautious in the first place, obviously they were put in place because of some one-time weird event.  So of course we can better judge the true risk ourselves.

On the buffalo theme, I spent a while in Southern Africa doing research across three countries.  While in Namibia we were working with one of the park biologists.  The day we showed up a tourist got snatched off of a bench he had decided to sleep on, at night, when it's separated from the watering hole by an 8 foot fence, that had trees growing next to it.  I remarked at how fing stupid do you have to be, which led to this gem.  Apparently stupidity always plays a role in the park, they lose people every year to attacks.  The one that took the cake to this guy was the Japanese tourist who was in a vehicle, saw a pride fight between two males, the one that lost was obviously injured and it crawled into some bushes.  She GETS out of the car, gets a first aid kit, and attempted to patch the lion up with some gauze.  It ate her. 

I think across all countries/areas people associate national park with "petting zoo" and think that just because they are in a park they are domesticated like Fido or Fluffy

[onehair]

On a semi topic related update after months of avoiding my aunt and uncle like the plague my mother returned to the house to see what my aunt and uncle had been up to.  My aunt promptly corners her, asks about any remainder of my late grandmother's estate as in cash money(my late grandmother left all her assets to my mom since she said my aunt and uncle were spendthrifts and untrustworthy) gee I wonder how she formed that conclusion...
After my mom refused to answer that question she then asked her for some money...I was impressed by her gall but my aunt has never lacked in gall.  I think she has a gall excess that should be drained off from time to time...

[zolotiyeruki]

On a semi topic related update after months of avoiding my aunt and uncle like the plague my mother returned to the house to see what my aunt and uncle had been up to.  My aunt promptly corners her, asks about any remainder of my late grandmother's estate as in cash money(my late grandmother left all her assets to my mom since she said my aunt and uncle were spendthrifts and untrustworthy) gee I wonder how she formed that conclusion...
After my mom refused to answer that question she then asked her for some money...I was impressed by her gall but my aunt has never lacked in gall.  I think she has a gall excess that should be drained off from time to time...

You might want to cross-post that to the inheritance drama thread.

[Kitsune]

Not only finance-related, but general-life-related.

My brother is 21; I'm 32. He is... very young. Like, 16-going-on-21.

Last weekend, he starts going on a rant about how 'marriage is useless, I don't believe in marriage, I guess it might help people stay together but seriously there are zero advantages'.

Mind: he's not married. His longest relationship is 3 months. None of his friends are married (at his age, normal, totally not a dig, but... maybe admit that what you're talking about is outside your sphere of experience?)

So, in good faith, I try to explain that there are concrete reasons to get married. My friend got married because that's what let her register as next-of-kin for her husband's army service (would YOU want your partner off in Afganistan and no way of knowing if they're ok?) and got her moving expenses from one of her husband's postings to the next covered (otherwise, she was on her own to ship herself and her belongings across the country to follow him). My husband and I got married... partially for social recognition, but honestly mostly because getting married gave significant tax advantages for property transfers we needed to do before building our house (saved us about 3k in taxes), and also set in place a legal structure with regards to the finances that we were combining... basically, so that if we DID split up after shifting property around and having kids and taking time off work and functionally dumping all our financial eggs in each other's baskets, there'd be a fair way to re-distribute property and belongings (and we looked into what the law was in our province so we could get a pre-nup spelling out a different intent if we disagreed, but we were both ok with the laws in place). Also because if anything happened to me, I wanted him to automatically have the legal right to make medical decisions for me, and not my parents, since he's more likely to make the decisions I'd want made. Basically just trying to point out that marriage is not An Institution, it's a legal construct has significant potential benefits AND drawbacks, both legally and financially, and you should be aware of what they are before saying you 'don't believe in it'. And also, frankly, once you have a mortgage and kids, it's already complicated enough to split up that if it's bad enough to do it, being married vs not wouldn't stop me.

He just got really pissy and was like 'no, none of that is true, it's just because people want social bs, you're not listening to my argument'.

And I'm like. Kid. I'm listening. I JUST THINK YOU'RE STILL WRONG.

And hopefully you'll start bloody listening to me BEFORE getting chomped in the tush by your failure to look at the benefits/drawbacks of this particular situation. AKA: if you decide to get married, do it knowing what the legal implications of the paper you're signing are. And if you decide you don't want to, PLEASE, for the love of god, put in place airtight documentations outlining who your medical power of attorney should be if it's not our parents, outline a rental agreement before moving in with a girlfriend, DO NOT combine finances or have a joint bank account with ANYONE if you're not prepared to lose what's in it, etc.

It's easy to say 'I don't believe in the institution'. But the institution is a legal construct. It exists. It might be wise to figure out the benefits and drawbacks.

[10dollarsatatime]

Backstory: My brother and his wife adopted 4 kids.  They came from a pretty bad background and are making great strides forward from where they were 3 years ago.  The youngest is autistic and has a sensory disorder, among other things.  SIL posts this on facebook last week (paraphrased):

The therapist doesn't know what to do for the youngest.  He wants to have the kid tested for something, but insurance won't cover the cost.  $500 is so much money.  It's a good thing we're going on vacation next week.  Maybe that will give us the 'reset' we need.

They're going to Texas for two weeks.

More background on SIL... (I may have posted this already, but I don't think so.)

10 years ago or so, after she and my brother had been married for a couple of years, they bought a house.  My brother worked 50+ hours/week.  She dropped out of hair school with only a couple of classes left and did nothing.  She owed her grandparents $7000 for hair school.  Since she's not working, that money comes from my brother.  For some reason, my brother agreed that she should be in charge of finances.  At some point, one of my other brothers (also terrible with money) and his family moves in with them.  This brother is sitting on the john one day, picks up a magazine, flips through it, and an envelope from the mortgage company falls out.  With a big, red 'final notice' splashed across the front.  She apparently hasn't been paying the mortgage.  And is hiding bills from her husband.  Brother hands envelope to husband.  Unfortunately, it's now too late to recover from her indiscretions.  She can't explain exactly where all the money went.  They lose the house.  My brother talks divorce, but for some reason (religious, if I were to guess), decides to work things out.  My family is disappointed, as our moniker for her has been 'Bitch SIL' since about 6 months after they were married, and she started showing who she really was.

Sadly, it looks like she's been mostly in control of finances again for the past couple of years.

[K-ice]

...

Anyway, they don't seem to see the correlation between doing things yourself, and being good at doing things yourself. They must assume that some people are born with these abilities, and not that they are a result of any kind of practice.

I have always been amazed with DIY skills.

My SO can learn almost anything. Together we have 5 degrees and 2 patents.
But I am still surprised at what we can do.  Book-smart isn't always street-smart.

I still need to remind myself that most DIY stuff can be easily learned on YouTube.

Your first time doing something it may not be perfect. But it usually isn't life threatening.
We leave gas and the main electrical to the pros but other than that...

DIY is dam sexy!

[accountingteacher]

Re: "It's not about the money."

That comment, more than any other, is your BIL's "tell" so to speak.  The only people I know who say such things exert a lot of time, energy and money convincing themselves and their friends that they are wealthier than they really are.

A frugal person would have no problem saying it's about the money, because any waste, no matter the $ amount, is still waste to them.

[MgoSam]

Not only finance-related, but general-life-related.

My brother is 21; I'm 32. He is... very young. Like, 16-going-on-21.

Last weekend, he starts going on a rant about how 'marriage is useless, I don't believe in marriage, I guess it might help people stay together but seriously there are zero advantages'.
....
It's easy to say 'I don't believe in the institution'. But the institution is a legal construct. It exists. It might be wise to figure out the benefits and drawbacks.

I thought that as well when I was young, don't know when, and I'm guessing that most people here had some ideas that today they would laugh at. He might mature and learn more about the world, and he might keep his opinions the same, who knows? That said, yeah, I think he would be better off by at least attempting to listen to someone else's opinions....but then again, when I was younger, I thought I knew everything.

There are pro's and con's to getting married, someone getting married might want to consider thinking about it. I know that many people grow up knowing that they will get married, but no one should feel obligated to get married. Studies have shown that married people are happier than non-married people (recall if it causation or not), but it isn't for everyone. It also depends on if you meet someone that you are compatible with.

[saving_dutchman]

Our neighborhood has an email group so people can keep in touch, coordinate group discounts on stuff, questions about the HOA, etc.  I'm surprised at how often people ask for recommendations for tradesmen or handymen for doing really simple stuff.  Just a couple months ago, for example, there was a request for a plumber...to install a garbage disposal.  Another asked for an electrician...for an ceiling fan.  Seriously, folks, these things come with illustrated, step-by-step instructions!  Ok, if you're older and lack the strength, then I understand, but these things are not hard!

One of the things that gets up my goat in New Zealand is you (the home owner) are not legally allowed to touch the electrics, plumbing or gas unless you're a registered electrician/plumber.

I can understand the gas part, and sure some people don't take the correct precautions with electrics, but you don't have to ruin it for everyone.

Is it difficult (or expensive?) to become a registered electrician or plumber? It sounds like an interesting business opportunity to make some money on the side.

If your house burns down because of an electrical installation you want to be covered by the insurance. You don't want to end up in a situation where they are blaming you and will not pay out because of it.

[MgoSam]

Our neighborhood has an email group so people can keep in touch, coordinate group discounts on stuff, questions about the HOA, etc.  I'm surprised at how often people ask for recommendations for tradesmen or handymen for doing really simple stuff.  Just a couple months ago, for example, there was a request for a plumber...to install a garbage disposal.  Another asked for an electrician...for an ceiling fan.  Seriously, folks, these things come with illustrated, step-by-step instructions!  Ok, if you're older and lack the strength, then I understand, but these things are not hard!

One of the things that gets up my goat in New Zealand is you (the home owner) are not legally allowed to touch the electrics, plumbing or gas unless you're a registered electrician/plumber.

I can understand the gas part, and sure some people don't take the correct precautions with electrics, but you don't have to ruin it for everyone.

Is it difficult (or expensive?) to become a registered electrician or plumber? It sounds like an interesting business opportunity to make some money on the side.

If your house burns down because of an electrical installation you want to be covered by the insurance. You don't want to end up in a situation where they are blaming you and will not pay out because of it.

I wonder about the plumping regulations, if your toilet is clogged does that mean that you have to fork over a ton of money to bring in someone to fix something that any of us here could fix in 5 minutes or less?

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Our neighborhood has an email group so people can keep in touch, coordinate group discounts on stuff, questions about the HOA, etc.  I'm surprised at how often people ask for recommendations for tradesmen or handymen for doing really simple stuff.  Just a couple months ago, for example, there was a request for a plumber...to install a garbage disposal.  Another asked for an electrician...for an ceiling fan.  Seriously, folks, these things come with illustrated, step-by-step instructions!  Ok, if you're older and lack the strength, then I understand, but these things are not hard!

One of the things that gets up my goat in New Zealand is you (the home owner) are not legally allowed to touch the electrics, plumbing or gas unless you're a registered electrician/plumber.

I can understand the gas part, and sure some people don't take the correct precautions with electrics, but you don't have to ruin it for everyone.

Is it difficult (or expensive?) to become a registered electrician or plumber? It sounds like an interesting business opportunity to make some money on the side.

If your house burns down because of an electrical installation you want to be covered by the insurance. You don't want to end up in a situation where they are blaming you and will not pay out because of it.

I wonder about the plumping regulations, if your toilet is clogged does that mean that you have to fork over a ton of money to bring in someone to fix something that any of us here could fix in 5 minutes or less?

Unenforceable laws don't get followed. I'm sure there is the occasional moron who calls a plumber, but I can't imagine they don't sell plungers in New Zealand.

[Papa Mustache]

My parents and I are often in disagreement about self-sufficiency and doing/building/fixing things yourself. There is often a contridiction where, on the one hand they praise the fact that I know how to do a lot of things for myself, but on the other hand discourage me from actually doing it.

My dad was visiting a couple weeks ago and praised the good job I did on rebuilding the railing around my deck. He asked if I had helped from my FIL (who is into woodworking) and I said that no, I did it myself with help from my wife. He was surprised because "it looks like it was done by someone who knows what they're doing." I also pointed out the bench I made with the leftover wood, he kind of ooohed and awed about it and said something along the lines of "well you can do those things because you have skills..."
But then the other day when I was on the phone with him I told him about a pair of oars I was making and he said I really shouldn't be making them and I should just go buy a pair. I told him I wanted to get better at fiberglass work (I was putting fiberglass on the tips of the blades as reinforcement) because I was having a bit of trouble making them look nice, he said "you can't learn everything, you should just let the professionals do these things" and told me I should go see a movie instead.
My mom has similar comments. The other day she was saying that she admires that I'm so handy and can fix things, but anytime something breaks and I say I'm going to try fixing it she explaims something along the lines of "don't bother, just throw it out and buy another one!" and how trying to fix stuff is a waste of time. When they bought us a dishwasher for xmas, they were adamant that I hire a professional to come install it (and deliver it) instead of doing it myself because <something about liability if it leaks>. Even though the all the lines were already there, from our old dishwasher. I ended up picking it up from the store and installing it myself in a couple of hours.

Anyway, they don't seem to see the correlation between doing things yourself, and being good at doing things yourself. They must assume that some people are born with these abilities, and not that they are a result of any kind of practice.

DIY - once you've done a few things - has the same entertainment value and calming potential as sitting through a movie IMHO. Working to unwind. Working to organize your thoughts.

[MgoSam]

Our neighborhood has an email group so people can keep in touch, coordinate group discounts on stuff, questions about the HOA, etc.  I'm surprised at how often people ask for recommendations for tradesmen or handymen for doing really simple stuff.  Just a couple months ago, for example, there was a request for a plumber...to install a garbage disposal.  Another asked for an electrician...for an ceiling fan.  Seriously, folks, these things come with illustrated, step-by-step instructions!  Ok, if you're older and lack the strength, then I understand, but these things are not hard!

One of the things that gets up my goat in New Zealand is you (the home owner) are not legally allowed to touch the electrics, plumbing or gas unless you're a registered electrician/plumber.

I can understand the gas part, and sure some people don't take the correct precautions with electrics, but you don't have to ruin it for everyone.

Is it difficult (or expensive?) to become a registered electrician or plumber? It sounds like an interesting business opportunity to make some money on the side.

If your house burns down because of an electrical installation you want to be covered by the insurance. You don't want to end up in a situation where they are blaming you and will not pay out because of it.

I wonder about the plumping regulations, if your toilet is clogged does that mean that you have to fork over a ton of money to bring in someone to fix something that any of us here could fix in 5 minutes or less?

Unenforceable laws don't get followed. I'm sure there is the occasional moron who calls a plumber, but I can't imagine they don't sell plungers in New Zealand.

True. There are all sorts of inane laws in the books, I remember seeing an article someone published that showed a list of laws that are still in the books here in Minnesota, one of which made it a crime to walk across the street with a duck on your head. I would love to see the inspiration behind that law.

[Tjat]

If your house burns down because of an electrical installation you want to be covered by the insurance. You don't want to end up in a situation where they are blaming you and will not pay out because of it.

Insurance covers stupidity. Just as it would pay if you fell asleep with a cigarette in your mouth, it would pay if you incorrectly wired something and caused a fire.

[MgoSam]

If your house burns down because of an electrical installation you want to be covered by the insurance. You don't want to end up in a situation where they are blaming you and will not pay out because of it.

Insurance covers stupidity. Just as it would pay if you fell asleep with a cigarette in your mouth, it would pay if you incorrectly wired something and caused a fire.

Just try getting your auto insurance to pay up if you've had a crash due to intoxication.

[Paul der Krake]

If your house burns down because of an electrical installation you want to be covered by the insurance. You don't want to end up in a situation where they are blaming you and will not pay out because of it.

Insurance covers stupidity. Just as it would pay if you fell asleep with a cigarette in your mouth, it would pay if you incorrectly wired something and caused a fire.

Just try getting your auto insurance to pay up if you've had a crash due to intoxication.

To be more precise, insurance covers stupidity unless there is a clause excluding that particular type of stupidity. Typical examples include drunk driving or deliberately causing harm to yourself/your property.

Thankfully, they will always pay out liability claims from others.

[zolotiyeruki]

If your house burns down because of an electrical installation you want to be covered by the insurance. You don't want to end up in a situation where they are blaming you and will not pay out because of it.

Insurance covers stupidity. Just as it would pay if you fell asleep with a cigarette in your mouth, it would pay if you incorrectly wired something and caused a fire.

I think many homeowner's insurance policies specifically exclude damage from unpermitted or not-to-code plumbing and/or electrical work.

[merula]

Just try getting your auto insurance to pay up if you've had a crash due to intoxication.

This is covered under every US auto policy I've ever seen. To not pay would not be in a public policy interest. Think of it from the point of view of the victim. "Are you telling me that if the guy who hit me and put me in a wheelchair was asleep or just stupid, you'd pay, but because he was drunk, I'm completely SOL??"

I think many homeowner's insurance policies specifically exclude damage from unpermitted or not-to-code plumbing and/or electrical work.

This seems like this a misinterpretation of a construction defect exclusion. Construction defect is generally excluded, as it's the responsibility of whoever did the work (including a DIYing homeowner), BUT resulting loss is covered. As an example, let's say that you rewire your house and do it poorly, and now none of your electrical outlets work. That's a defect in construction, not covered. BUT, if instead of having outlets not work the house burns down, it's covered. Basically, fire is always covered unless it's arson. Even if the fire is started by an excluded peril (flood, earthquake, construction defect), the damage from a fire is covered.

To be more precise, insurance covers stupidity unless there is a clause excluding that particular type of stupidity. Typical examples include drunk driving or deliberately causing harm to yourself/your property.

Thankfully, they will always pay out liability claims from others.

Paul is right. (Like his namesake! Spain 2010!) As an underwriter, I wish I had a stupidity exclusion, but I have to settle for intentional loss exclusions and other, less-specific things.

[joleran]

Basically, fire is always covered unless it's arson. Even if the fire is started by an excluded peril (flood, earthquake, construction defect), the damage from a fire is covered.

And even then, only if it's the insured party committing the arson, right?  So, if I go burn down your house, your insurance will work for you.

[merula]

Basically, fire is always covered unless it's arson. Even if the fire is started by an excluded peril (flood, earthquake, construction defect), the damage from a fire is covered.

And even then, only if it's the insured party committing the arson, right?  So, if I go burn down your house, your insurance will work for you.

Yes, if you burn down my house, I'm covered. But I can't burn down my own house (or ask you to burn it down) and collect the insurance. That's the part of the policy excluding illegal acts, and the common law prohibition on profiting from your own crime.

[barbaz]

Yes, if you burn down my house, I'm covered. But I can't burn down my own house (or ask you to burn it down) and collect the insurance.

Ohhh, it would be such a shame if somebody burned down my house. I'm so attached to it, even now when it's worth less than half of what it's insured for. I guess the loss of my house would be so traumatizing that I'd drop 100k of the insurance money right at the tree stump next to the playground without even noticing. Let's just hope nobody notices that the security camera at the back of my house next to the gasoline cans is broken...

Well then, I'm off to a two weeks vacation. Cya!

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Yes, if you burn down my house, I'm covered. But I can't burn down my own house (or ask you to burn it down) and collect the insurance.

Ohhh, it would be such a shame if somebody burned down my house. I'm so attached to it, even now when it's worth less than half of what it's insured for. I guess the loss of my house would be so traumatizing that I'd drop 100k of the insurance money right at the tree stump next to the playground without even noticing. Let's just hope nobody notices that the security camera at the back of my house next to the gasoline cans is broken...

Well then, I'm off to a two weeks vacation. Cya!

For a while the insurance company insisted the replacement cost of my house was $400,000 because it has masonry walls. It's, uh, not worth $400,000 in any imaginable way.

[Philociraptor]

Yes, if you burn down my house, I'm covered. But I can't burn down my own house (or ask you to burn it down) and collect the insurance.

Ohhh, it would be such a shame if somebody burned down my house. I'm so attached to it, even now when it's worth less than half of what it's insured for. I guess the loss of my house would be so traumatizing that I'd drop 100k of the insurance money right at the tree stump next to the playground without even noticing. Let's just hope nobody notices that the security camera at the back of my house next to the gasoline cans is broken...

Well then, I'm off to a two weeks vacation. Cya!

For a while the insurance company insisted the replacement cost of my house was $400,000 because it has masonry walls. It's, uh, not worth $400,000 in any imaginable way.

Insurance doesn't care about value, it cares about replacement cost.

[Rezdent]

Yes, if you burn down my house, I'm covered. But I can't burn down my own house (or ask you to burn it down) and collect the insurance.

Ohhh, it would be such a shame if somebody burned down my house. I'm so attached to it, even now when it's worth less than half of what it's insured for. I guess the loss of my house would be so traumatizing that I'd drop 100k of the insurance money right at the tree stump next to the playground without even noticing. Let's just hope nobody notices that the security camera at the back of my house next to the gasoline cans is broken...

Well then, I'm off to a two weeks vacation. Cya!

Sounds like you are over-insured.  If your house was a total loss, it's likely that insurance would cover THEIR estimated replacement value - after a lengthy investigation.

[RetiredAt63]

This is getting pretty OT, but . . .
My area is in a stagnant housing market - I know of nice houses whose replacement value (insurance) is about the same as their potential sale value.  And of course the replacement value doesn't even cover the value of the land.  But replacement value is for rebuilding, and that includes all the clearing out costs before the rebuild can start.

I speak from unfortunate experience, my basement flooded, I have replacement insurance, and the cleanup is about 25% of the total cost.  Very little replacement of damaged goods, the cost is ripping out all the damaged infrastructure and replacing it.  Particleboard cabinets (laundry room) can't take 1/2" of water.  Laminate flooring, same.  Wallboard, same (I had more than 1/2 inch in some areas, but with the floor slope some areas got almost no water, and still had damage).

Sounds like you are over-insured.  If your house was a total loss, it's likely that insurance would cover THEIR estimated replacement value - after a lengthy investigation.

[Primm]

Just try getting your auto insurance to pay up if you've had a crash due to intoxication.

This is covered under every US auto policy I've ever seen. To not pay would not be in a public policy interest. Think of it from the point of view of the victim. "Are you telling me that if the guy who hit me and put me in a wheelchair was asleep or just stupid, you'd pay, but because he was drunk, I'm completely SOL??"

I actually thought that MgoSam meant that if you, Merula, were drunk and crashed your car into a tree, the insurance company would not pay you for the value of your car. Nothing to do with personal injury or 3rd parties.

[merula]

I actually thought that MgoSam meant that if you, Merula, were drunk and crashed your car into a tree, the insurance company would not pay you for the value of your car. Nothing to do with personal injury or 3rd parties.

If I have collision coverage, it doesn't matter how my car is damaged (other than excluded causes of loss like intentional damage), my insurance will pay for it. If I don't have collision coverage, then you're right, my insurance won't pay for my car's damage, but they wouldn't no matter what happened.

Being drunk doesn't matter... in the US.

Foreign countries are a different matter altogether. I once heard about a loss in a majority-Muslim country where a guy was entertaining business clients with alcohol, and then drove home. Drunk. Ended up killing two people and seriously injuring another. Alcohol was legal to consume in this country, but the standard auto insurance had an alcohol-related acts exclusion because of the overall view of alcohol in the local culture. The loss ended up being covered by the employer's umbrella policy (worldwide coverage territory for commercial umbrellas), but the payout was only low six-figures. (I say only because a similar loss in the US would be at least seven if not more.)

[Primm]

I actually thought that MgoSam meant that if you, Merula, were drunk and crashed your car into a tree, the insurance company would not pay you for the value of your car. Nothing to do with personal injury or 3rd parties.

If I have collision coverage, it doesn't matter how my car is damaged (other than excluded causes of loss like intentional damage), my insurance will pay for it. If I don't have collision coverage, then you're right, my insurance won't pay for my car's damage, but they wouldn't no matter what happened.

Being drunk doesn't matter... in the US.

Foreign countries are a different matter altogether. I once heard about a loss in a majority-Muslim country where a guy was entertaining business clients with alcohol, and then drove home. Drunk. Ended up killing two people and seriously injuring another. Alcohol was legal to consume in this country, but the standard auto insurance had an alcohol-related acts exclusion because of the overall view of alcohol in the local culture. The loss ended up being covered by the employer's umbrella policy (worldwide coverage territory for commercial umbrellas), but the payout was only low six-figures. (I say only because a similar loss in the US would be at least seven if not more.)

Wow, really? There's a standard clause in insurance policies here that states if you are breaking the law when your car is damaged you're SOL when it comes to claiming. Drunk driving is illegal, hence no payout. Same with deliberate destruction of property - no money for you.

Would be an easy way to get money out of a company without worrying about an insurance fraud investigation - get drunk, crash into a tree, blame it on the alcohol.

[MgoSam]

I actually thought that MgoSam meant that if you, Merula, were drunk and crashed your car into a tree, the insurance company would not pay you for the value of your car. Nothing to do with personal injury or 3rd parties.

If I have collision coverage, it doesn't matter how my car is damaged (other than excluded causes of loss like intentional damage), my insurance will pay for it. If I don't have collision coverage, then you're right, my insurance won't pay for my car's damage, but they wouldn't no matter what happened.

Being drunk doesn't matter... in the US.

Foreign countries are a different matter altogether. I once heard about a loss in a majority-Muslim country where a guy was entertaining business clients with alcohol, and then drove home. Drunk. Ended up killing two people and seriously injuring another. Alcohol was legal to consume in this country, but the standard auto insurance had an alcohol-related acts exclusion because of the overall view of alcohol in the local culture. The loss ended up being covered by the employer's umbrella policy (worldwide coverage territory for commercial umbrellas), but the payout was only low six-figures. (I say only because a similar loss in the US would be at least seven if not more.)

Wow, really? There's a standard clause in insurance policies here that states if you are breaking the law when your car is damaged you're SOL when it comes to claiming. Drunk driving is illegal, hence no payout. Same with deliberate destruction of property - no money for you.

Would be an easy way to get money out of a company without worrying about an insurance fraud investigation - get drunk, crash into a tree, blame it on the alcohol.

Thanks Primm, and yeah I haven't looked that closely at my collision insurance to see if it covers me crashing my car while drunk because I don't get drunk and if I do, I certainly don't drive, but I know a few people that have had family members do so and they weren't able to collect anything. I could be wrong, but I can't imagine insurance companies paying up during such an illegal act.

[merula]

Wow, really? There's a standard clause in insurance policies here that states if you are breaking the law when your car is damaged you're SOL when it comes to claiming. Drunk driving is illegal, hence no payout. Same with deliberate destruction of property - no money for you.

Would be an easy way to get money out of a company without worrying about an insurance fraud investigation - get drunk, crash into a tree, blame it on the alcohol.

How would you be getting money out of an insurance company in that situation? Assuming a US auto policy, they agreed to pay for physical damage to your vehicle, you have physical damage to your vehicle, you get the value of the vehicle minus your deductible. You haven't gained anything, you've traded one thing of value (your car) for something else of less value (cash minus deductible).

Thanks Primm, and yeah I haven't looked that closely at my collision insurance to see if it covers me crashing my car while drunk because I don't get drunk and if I do, I certainly don't drive, but I know a few people that have had family members do so and they weren't able to collect anything. I could be wrong, but I can't imagine insurance companies paying up during such an illegal act.

I would recommend looking closely at your insurance, especially since you're in MN as well and I know my policy doesn't exclude damage from non-intentional illegal acts. The only provision that's close to this is:

Loss to your covered auto due to destruction or confiscation by governmental or civil authorities because you or any family member:
a. Engaged in illegal activities; or
b. Failed to comply with Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Transportation standards.

Basically, if you drive drunk, get pulled over and get your car confiscated, your insurance doesn't buy you a new car. BUT, physical damage to your vehicle from a collision is still "direct and accidental loss".

[druth]

Not the first or last time I will complain about my inlaws but...

Just got a letter in the mail.  In big letters on the top it says "You're Invited!"
and then underneath it explains that while they can't afford to do a fundraiser, we are "invited" to help them pay off their debts due to an "unfair and false" DOL finding against them and their businesses.  If just 15 families donate the suggested 1k donation(very presumptuous if you ask me), then they will be in the clear.

Why don't they have 15k of their own when they are in their 50s?
1. Putting a bunch of money into a "good christian" MLM scheme that will be "paying them 70k by next year". (next year has been just around the corner for about 2 years now)
2. getting a for profit degree so that one of them can do more parts of the job that they are planning to retire from 2 years after finishing the degree.
3. Leasing a car, returning the car, buying another luxury car instead, all while their cars worked fine.

As an aside does accusing somebody of giving false testimony and saying that the court is wrong open them up to slander liability?  Maybe, not my problem though.
Maybe I'll give them 5$, that's what they gave me for my graduation.

I suppose this is what people did before goFundMe?

Had the following conversation with the in laws today:

Mr Druth: Something something about his new job at a start-up
MIL: Oh, that reminds me of this great investment opportunity you should look into.  it's XYZ startup.
Mr Druth: Ooookay....  Where did you hear about this Mom?
MIL: One of our friends we met at a [good christian scam described above] convention!  It's a great product, and they are giving stock at $1 each, but it's valued at $1.50 when they start selling it publicly!
Mr Druth: *literally hangs head in hands and sighs*
Me:  According to who?  Did you value that yourself, or did the owner tell you that?
MIL: Well our friend knows a lot about investing, and it's a great product, it's the most effective treatment for [common mental disorder].
Me:  According to who?  Peer reviewed studies, or did the owner tell you that?
MIL: [changes subject]
Me(exact words):  None of us can afford to invest without diversification.  Never do this sort of stuff with money you can't afford to lose.  None of us should be in anything riskier than index funds.
MIL: Oh isn't the baby cute? [more subject changes]
---------------

I'm sure she already invested, and it's probably just lost money now.  They just refuse to learn.  It's always the next get rich quick scheme, when they would probably be relatively rich already if they just applied themselves and stopped throwing money away. 

I did later re-iterate to Mr Druth that we are never ever giving them money for any reason though.

In laws are selling two vehicles (extra vehicles at least) in order to buy in to this thing.  The company seems perfectly legitimate at least, but in laws just can't seem to get their head around the whole 'high returns = high risk' concept.  Obviously if you have to sell cars to invest, you don't have enough to invest.  Still smh.

Edit: JK did more research and it's a company run buy somebody who has been invovled in two prior ponzi schemes so...  We sent them an email with our findings but I imagine they will ignore it.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[MgoSam]

b. Failed to comply with Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Transportation standards.[/i]

So does this mean that Volkswagen cars wouldn't be covered (the ones that have WAY higher emissions)? I would love to see an insurance company use this as a reason to avoid paying out.

[merula]

b. Failed to comply with Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Transportation standards.[/i]

So does this mean that Volkswagen cars wouldn't be covered (the ones that have WAY higher emissions)? I would love to see an insurance company use this as a reason to avoid paying out.

The insurance company can't say "this is a VW with emissions problems, therefore your fenderbender isn't covered."

Loss to your covered auto due to destruction or confiscation by governmental or civil authorities because you or any family member:
a. Engaged in illegal activities; or
b. Failed to comply with Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Transportation standards.

The exclusion only applies if (1) the loss is because governmental/civil authorities (2) destroyed or confiscated the vehicle (3) due to your failure to comply with EPA standards.

It would be pretty easy to argue that the VW thing was fraud on VW's part. The owners had every reason to believe emissions standards were being met. Plus, I haven't heard of any government or civil authorities confiscating or destroying those VW vehicles.

[barbaz]

Wow, really? There's a standard clause in insurance policies here that states if you are breaking the law when your car is damaged you're SOL when it comes to claiming. Drunk driving is illegal, hence no payout. Same with deliberate destruction of property - no money for you.

Would be an easy way to get money out of a company without worrying about an insurance fraud investigation - get drunk, crash into a tree, blame it on the alcohol.

In Germany we have a thing called Richtgeschwindigkeit (recommended speed). You can to as fast as you want, but if youre involved in an accident you'll be held partially responsible and lose insurance depending on how fast you were.

[MgoSam]

b. Failed to comply with Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Transportation standards.[/i]

So does this mean that Volkswagen cars wouldn't be covered (the ones that have WAY higher emissions)? I would love to see an insurance company use this as a reason to avoid paying out.

The insurance company can't say "this is a VW with emissions problems, therefore your fenderbender isn't covered."

Loss to your covered auto due to destruction or confiscation by governmental or civil authorities because you or any family member:
a. Engaged in illegal activities; or
b. Failed to comply with Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Transportation standards.

The exclusion only applies if (1) the loss is because governmental/civil authorities (2) destroyed or confiscated the vehicle (3) due to your failure to comply with EPA standards.

It would be pretty easy to argue that the VW thing was fraud on VW's part. The owners had every reason to believe emissions standards were being met. Plus, I haven't heard of any government or civil authorities confiscating or destroying those VW vehicles.

Good response, I'm just curious about EPA standards and insurance companies using them to get out of paying. for DoT, I imagine they are referring to speed limits, alcohol, and many other things that make sense to me.

[Digital Dogma]

b. Failed to comply with Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Transportation standards.[/i]

So does this mean that Volkswagen cars wouldn't be covered (the ones that have WAY higher emissions)? I would love to see an insurance company use this as a reason to avoid paying out.

The insurance company can't say "this is a VW with emissions problems, therefore your fenderbender isn't covered."

Loss to your covered auto due to destruction or confiscation by governmental or civil authorities because you or any family member:
a. Engaged in illegal activities; or
b. Failed to comply with Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Transportation standards.

The exclusion only applies if (1) the loss is because governmental/civil authorities (2) destroyed or confiscated the vehicle (3) due to your failure to comply with EPA standards.

It would be pretty easy to argue that the VW thing was fraud on VW's part. The owners had every reason to believe emissions standards were being met. Plus, I haven't heard of any government or civil authorities confiscating or destroying those VW vehicles.

Good response, I'm just curious about EPA standards and insurance companies using them to get out of paying. for DoT, I imagine they are referring to speed limits, alcohol, and many other things that make sense to me.

I dunno, but I wouldn't go telling the insurance company that your truck lit on fire after idling for more than 3 minutes :)

[MgoSam]

b. Failed to comply with Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Transportation standards.[/i]

So does this mean that Volkswagen cars wouldn't be covered (the ones that have WAY higher emissions)? I would love to see an insurance company use this as a reason to avoid paying out.

The insurance company can't say "this is a VW with emissions problems, therefore your fenderbender isn't covered."

Loss to your covered auto due to destruction or confiscation by governmental or civil authorities because you or any family member:
a. Engaged in illegal activities; or
b. Failed to comply with Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Transportation standards.

The exclusion only applies if (1) the loss is because governmental/civil authorities (2) destroyed or confiscated the vehicle (3) due to your failure to comply with EPA standards.

It would be pretty easy to argue that the VW thing was fraud on VW's part. The owners had every reason to believe emissions standards were being met. Plus, I haven't heard of any government or civil authorities confiscating or destroying those VW vehicles.

Good response, I'm just curious about EPA standards and insurance companies using them to get out of paying. for DoT, I imagine they are referring to speed limits, alcohol, and many other things that make sense to me.

I dunno, but I wouldn't go telling the insurance company that your truck lit on fire after idling for more than 3 minutes :)

Just like that Texan who allegedly drove his Burgatti into a lake because a bird was flying at him, and then left his car on for 5 minutes while it was getting soaked?

[Papa Mustache]

I actually thought that MgoSam meant that if you, Merula, were drunk and crashed your car into a tree, the insurance company would not pay you for the value of your car. Nothing to do with personal injury or 3rd parties.

If I have collision coverage, it doesn't matter how my car is damaged (other than excluded causes of loss like intentional damage), my insurance will pay for it. If I don't have collision coverage, then you're right, my insurance won't pay for my car's damage, but they wouldn't no matter what happened.

Being drunk doesn't matter... in the US.

Foreign countries are a different matter altogether. I once heard about a loss in a majority-Muslim country where a guy was entertaining business clients with alcohol, and then drove home. Drunk. Ended up killing two people and seriously injuring another. Alcohol was legal to consume in this country, but the standard auto insurance had an alcohol-related acts exclusion because of the overall view of alcohol in the local culture. The loss ended up being covered by the employer's umbrella policy (worldwide coverage territory for commercial umbrellas), but the payout was only low six-figures. (I say only because a similar loss in the US would be at least seven if not more.)

Wow, really? There's a standard clause in insurance policies here that states if you are breaking the law when your car is damaged you're SOL when it comes to claiming. Drunk driving is illegal, hence no payout. Same with deliberate destruction of property - no money for you.

Would be an easy way to get money out of a company without worrying about an insurance fraud investigation - get drunk, crash into a tree, blame it on the alcohol.

Thanks Primm, and yeah I haven't looked that closely at my collision insurance to see if it covers me crashing my car while drunk because I don't get drunk and if I do, I certainly don't drive, but I know a few people that have had family members do so and they weren't able to collect anything. I could be wrong, but I can't imagine insurance companies paying up during such an illegal act.

Thanks for the info. My teen and I were talking about this very topic last night after viewing YouTube videos where people were doing stupid / reckless things with motorcycles/cars/trucks.

When the video dude wipes out while doing something stupid and takes out a few innocent cars - who pays?

Insurance company or do they come after him after the fact?

[Primm]

Thanks for the info. My teen and I were talking about this very topic last night after viewing YouTube videos where people were doing stupid / reckless things with motorcycles/cars/trucks.

When the video dude wipes out while doing something stupid and takes out a few innocent cars - who pays?

Insurance company or do they come after him after the fact?

My understanding of how it happens here (which must be true because interwebz) is that the insurance company would pay out damage to everyone's vehicle bar the driver at fault, and then go after the driver at fault.

There was a big kerfuffle in my state several years ago because it became public knowledge that if a driver were at fault in a crash, their personal injury insurance would not cover them! Fortunately there was no particular harm because we have a public health system which covers them for no cost, but it still caused a stir and has been rectified. And that wasn't even if someone was doing something illegal, simply lost control of their own car and crashed into a pole for example.

[barbaz]

My understanding of how it happens here (which must be true because interwebz) is that the insurance company would pay out damage to everyone's vehicle bar the driver at fault, and then go after the driver at fault.

What do you mean by "the insurance company"? If there are two parties involved (eg, driver at fault and innocent driver), there are potentially two different insurance companies.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

My understanding of how it happens here (which must be true because interwebz) is that the insurance company would pay out damage to everyone's vehicle bar the driver at fault, and then go after the driver at fault.

What do you mean by "the insurance company"? If there are two parties involved (eg, driver at fault and innocent driver), there are potentially two different insurance companies.

Here in New Mexico, there's more than one kind of insurance. There's liability insurance (for collisions) that covers damage to whomever you hit, and there's comprehensive insurance that covers damage to your vehicle. The law requires everyone to carry a minimum amount of liability insurance to protect other people on the road, but drunks, unlicensed people, and car thieves flout that rule all the time. So people carry a third kind of "uninsured motorist" insurance to cover damage to themselves or their vehicles if the driver that hits them flees the scene (which happened to me once), or has insurance that lapsed, or is driving a stolen vehicle.

In theory, the drunk's insurance policy is supposed to pay for the damages to the other vehicle(s) damaged during the accident. In practice, it doesn't always happen. Farmer's insurance is particularly adept at promising to pay and then sticking the victim with the expense, and most people who like to do road stunts or drive around drunk don't bother with insurance, registration, or sometimes even licensing.

Nobody really seems to come after the drunks and actually punish them financially, because you can't get blood from a stone. You can hand out judgments against them all day long and they won't pay. Suspending their license only means that they continue to drive unlicensed and uninsured because they borrow a vehicle from some enabler or another, or else take it without permission.

The upshot of all of this is: the onus is on you to protect yourself from the drunks and the predators, because the justice system is  completely ineffective from a protection or deterrent perspective. We just had a man who slaughtered an innocent person driving drunk a few years ago arrested yet again for impaired driving. But the way our system works, he's allowed to go around playing boozy bumper cars as much as he wants.