Quite a long time ago I remember reading an article about insurance company payment situations after a total loss. It had to do with guaranteed replacement, covering for full replacement value, etc.
What I remember was a paragraph about insurance company policy that was guaranteed replacement not wanting to pay if the insured did not attempt to rebuild. They wanted to take the money and leave. The point from the insurance company was that it was to prevent moral hazard. Hm...there is some sense to that. If I have no attachment to wanting to rebuild, I would therefore allow my home to become a hazard leading to a fire and just walk with a big payout. Or worse it would lead to more arson which creates gaming instead of insurance. I'm wondering about good public policy in these situations. Leaving a big hole in the ground in a nice neighborhood would not seem a good thing.
Any ideas about this matter? I have a feeling that it would become an actual cash value situation.
What I remember was a paragraph about insurance company policy that was guaranteed replacement not wanting to pay if the insured did not attempt to rebuild. They wanted to take the money and leave. The point from the insurance company was that it was to prevent moral hazard. Hm...there is some sense to that. If I have no attachment to wanting to rebuild, I would therefore allow my home to become a hazard leading to a fire and just walk with a big payout. Or worse it would lead to more arson which creates gaming instead of insurance. I'm wondering about good public policy in these situations. Leaving a big hole in the ground in a nice neighborhood would not seem a good thing.
Any ideas about this matter? I have a feeling that it would become an actual cash value situation.
Last edited: