Owning the Samsung Note 7 could mean your home insurance is invalid!

[Ca_lvn]

First - you got your money back so keeping it is a choice. Again.. Won't matter to an insurance company.

As for the 2nd part.. I'm not sure what that has to do with the conversation? Home owners insurance has rules that you have to go by to be insured... If you violate them and try and do a claim then you're out of luck. Simple as that. Not sure what's up with the whole contest won phone analogy.

If you intentionally violate them and file a claim it's called fraud

 

[Almeuit]

If you intentionally violate them and file a claim it's called fraud

Well yes of course it is -- if you're trying to deceive them by hiding it. If you tell them straight up you have a Note 7 after they say they won't insure you for it -- then you opened the door. Obviously keeping it and knowingly lying about it if something happened would be fraud -- I never once promoted doing that and never would.

 

[Almeuit]

Unless the fire was directly caused by the Note7 and the insurance company can prove that you intentionally took the risk by ignoring any and all advisories there is no way that they can spin this in their favor. It would be the equivalent of saying that you cannot get life insurance because you choose to eat cake, because you know, diabetes.

That isn't really relevant. If they say it shouldn't be in your possession / house to be insured then that is their terms that you have to agree to in order to be insured. Plain and simple.

 

[jj2339]

Will having matches in your home invalidate your insurance? How about smoking cigarettes; haven't they been linked to a string of fires in homes? What about other flammable items kept in your home?

That really is ridiculous. The insurance carrier has every right took define the terms of the policy, and if the note 7 had been recalled by the manufacturer for starting fires, they have every right to not cover fires from a known fire hazard. Matches are not a fire hazard, they are safer unless misused or intentionally used for arson. Night and day difference here.

 

[dejanh]

That isn't really relevant. If they say it shouldn't be in your possession / house to be insured then that is their terms that you have to agree to in order to be insured. Plain and simple.

Maybe in the US the insurer gets to dictate what you can and cannot own, but this is certainly not the case in Canada. In Canada the insurer can refuse to insure a said piece of property or ask you to pay a higher premium as a consequence, or even outright refuse to provide insurance, but cannot dictate what you do or don't own. Is it really like that for you guys? Serious question because that seems crazy...

 

[wookiee2cu]

Maybe in the US the insurer gets to dictate what you can and cannot own, but this is certainly not the case in Canada. In Canada the insurer can refuse to insure a said piece of property or ask you to pay a higher premium as a consequence, or even outright refuse to provide insurance, but cannot dictate what you do or don't own. Is it really like that for you guys? Serious question because that seems crazy...

They can't dictate what you can and can't own but they can deny claims. Picture this scenario though. You own the Note 7 and the battery ruptures while it's charging in your residence and starts a fire. The fire department will investigate to determine the cause of the fire, the insurance company will want a copy of that investigation report before paying out any claim. The report states that the fire was caused by the Note 7. The insurance company realizes the Note 7 was a recalled device due to battery ruptures resulting in a fire occurring and owners were notified to power down and return the device immediately. Because the owner did not follow the manufacturers warning regarding the hazardous conditions then the owner acted in a negligent manner therefore the insurance claim will be denied. I imagine this is how it would work with pretty much any insurance company. In the U.S. they can also charge higher premiums, for example if you want insurance for your house but you live in an area that is known to flood now and then, the premiums will be higher than say an elevated area. They can also flat out refuse to offer coverage on an item if they so choose.

 

[dejanh]

They can't dictate what you can and can't own but they can deny claims. Picture this scenario though. You own the Note 7 and the battery ruptures while it's charging in your residence and starts a fire. The fire department will investigate to determine the cause of the fire, the insurance company will want a copy of that investigation report before paying out any claim. The report states that the fire was caused by the Note 7. The insurance company realizes the Note 7 was a recalled device due to battery ruptures resulting in a fire occurring and owners were notified to power down and return the device immediately. Because the owner did not follow the manufacturers warning regarding the hazardous conditions then the owner acted in a negligent manner therefore the insurance claim will be denied. I imagine this is how it would work with pretty much any insurance company. In the U.S. they can also charge higher premiums, for example if you want insurance for your house but you live in an area that is known to flood now and then, the premiums will be higher than say an elevated area. They can also flat out refuse to offer coverage on an item if they so choose.

Everything you listed is perfectly normal. I was referring to the comment that seemed to allude to the insurance being able to dictate what you can and cannot own. I thought it was rather odd.

 

[budven]

That really is ridiculous. The insurance carrier has every right took define the terms of the policy, and if the note 7 had been recalled by the manufacturer for starting fires, they have every right to not cover fires from a known fire hazard. Matches are not a fire hazard, they are safer unless misused or intentionally used for arson. Night and day difference here.

Haha. Notice you one chose to address matches while leaving out cigarettes. Yep that really is ridiculous.

 

[CaribMas]

I wonder if US insurance companies will issue a similar warning.

 

[Teamjones]

All of the people driving around in cars with the recalled airbags also had their auto insurance canceled.

Your kidding right?

 

[Almeuit]

Maybe in the US the insurer gets to dictate what you can and cannot own, but this is certainly not the case in Canada. In Canada the insurer can refuse to insure a said piece of property or ask you to pay a higher premium as a consequence, or even outright refuse to provide insurance, but cannot dictate what you do or don't own. Is it really like that for you guys? Serious question because that seems crazy...

Ah yeah makes sense then.. You aren't in the US . Yes certain things have to be approved by your insurance in order to be insured. I even had to have them verify my dog was okay (Siberian Husky) to be insured. Sucks but it is what it is. Especially since you have to have home owners insurance (not sure if that's the case where you live).

 

[Teamjones]

Ah yeah makes sense then.. You aren't in the US . Yes certain things have to be approved by your insurance in order to be insured. I even had to have them verify my dog was okay (Siberian Husky) to be insured. Sucks but it is what it is. Especially since you have to have home owners insurance (not sure if that's the case where you live).

This is true....whime we were getting our house built, we started looking for insurance. A.S. wouldnt insure us because we had 2 Presa Canario's but S.F. did and was cheaper. So yea...they can in a way dictate what you have IF you want to use them.

 

[Jaycemiskel]

They can't dictate what you can and can't own but they can deny claims. Picture this scenario though. You own the Note 7 and the battery ruptures while it's charging in your residence and starts a fire. The fire department will investigate to determine the cause of the fire, the insurance company will want a copy of that investigation report before paying out any claim. The report states that the fire was caused by the Note 7. The insurance company realizes the Note 7 was a recalled device due to battery ruptures resulting in a fire occurring and owners were notified to power down and return the device immediately. Because the owner did not follow the manufacturers warning regarding the hazardous conditions then the owner acted in a negligent manner therefore the insurance claim will be denied. I imagine this is how it would work with pretty much any insurance company. In the U.S. they can also charge higher premiums, for example if you want insurance for your house but you live in an area that is known to flood now and then, the premiums will be higher than say an elevated area. They can also flat out refuse to offer coverage on an item if they so choose.

So what about in the case of the carrier never giving you a box to return it and it not being able to returned in a store?

 

[jsgiv]

Correct. Samsung does not owe me any direct money. They do however owe me a replacement device for a Note7 that was free. It's really not that complex.

This entire conversation is tangential to the insurance conversation. You or somebody else replied to one of my comments and so we find ourselves here. I used myself as an example, but I'm also 100% certain that there are many others out there (I know in Canada there are for sure) that Samsung claims no responsibility for because the recall is apparently only relevant if Samsung feels it is relevant. I'm not sure what is so complicated to understand here but it basically comes down to Samsung being selective about their responsibility. A recall on a product needs to apply universally, no matter how somebody came to own the product. If I bought a used car that then got taken off the market and had to be returned that doesn't make it a "too bad so sad" situation where I just need to "cut my losses", whether in direct money or other economic damages. But, let's get back to insurance now.

Unless the fire was directly caused by the Note7 and the insurance company can prove that you intentionally took the risk by ignoring any and all advisories there is no way that they can spin this in their favor. It would be the equivalent of saying that you cannot get life insurance because you choose to eat cake, because you know, diabetes.

They owe you what you paid for it... not the perceived value....

Go back and read up on some basic law concepts -

In your particular case you are out nothing (because you got the device for free) therefore you are owed nothing...

In my case they gave me a full refund for the amount I paid for it (which was the 2 payments I had made plus the tax)...

And they (nicely - but didn't have to) offered $100 off another Samsung phone should I choose to purchase at that time.. (I didn't) - they then (again, very nicely, they didn't have to per law) gave me a $25 credit on my bill...

Pretty sure they're doing this for everyone affected.

I'd recommend that you also take advantage of the same offer if it's still available. It's very nice of them and they don't have to do it.

But hey - good luck trying to get a replacement device for that free device you received.... Makes perfect sense...

 

[Blues Fan]

I'm still waiting for Tmobile to send me my refund check. They said last Monday they were sending me a check, still have not got it yet. The fiasco continues.

 

[dejanh]

But hey - good luck trying to get a replacement device for that free device you received.... Makes perfect sense...

By your token of logic no gift is ever eligible for any coverage, period. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

[From A Buick 8]

Your kidding right?

That is correct it was , it was my attempt at reductio ad absurdum.

Honestly, i bet the next thing they will be telling me i can not store my oily rag and gasoline can collection next to my furnace.

 

[wookiee2cu]

So what about in the case of the carrier never giving you a box to return it and it not being able to returned in a store?

Should that be the case and a fire did occur you'd probably get stuck in the middle between the insurance company and carrier placing the blame on one another and end up having to get a lawyer involved. One thing I've had to learn the hard way is if the insurance company does have to pay a claim it's their job to pay out the least amount as possible. For example with auto repair they will want to pay for generic replacement parts, not OEM parts.

 

[jdballard]

Will having matches in your home invalidate your insurance? How about smoking cigarettes; haven't they been linked to a string of fires in homes? What about other flammable items kept in your home?

Just a guess: those are all probably manageable from a risk perspective because they happen at consistent, known rates. I would guess that the problem with the Note 7 is that it's unpredictable and can't be managed.

 

[jj2339]

And they could have a clause in contact saying that they won't cover negligent acts like a cigarette unattended or oily rags by a furnace. Insurance is meant to protect you from the unknown, not to cover for stupid risky sections of the insured. They can choose to cover you or not, and they will work to reduce risk of a payout, like any other business does. If you violate the terms of the agreement, you lose out.


Look, you keep your note 7 after knowing it was recalled, it's on you to accept the consequences. I doubt home insurance may drop you for having one, but I seriously doubt they would pay out damaged as a result of the device after you had been given fair warning.