Every year different incidents with housing does not become less. The statistics of recorded cataclysms and accidents in recent years are also disappointing, however, it does not affect the skeptical attitude of the Russian society to the insurance Institute.
sourse imagePaternalism of hopes for assistance of the state, relatives and judicial instances — outshines all reasonableness in advance to take care of risks. In Europe, almost 90% of property owners have acquired an insurance policy for a long time. I understand that people are stopped by the high cost, distrust of insurance companies, incompetence of their representatives, as well as the hope that the trouble will not find us, but this is an absurd practice.
Unfortunately, the positive dynamics of this market segment is not related to the beginning of the development of the insurance culture. The reason is quite different, the rapid growth of mandatory policies for mortgages, as well as a bonus when "housing" is added to the appendage of the box insurance product.
Insurance companies in Russia are also changing: those who are not ready to pay a permanent fee for a long time has the opportunity to insure housing at least for the period of vacation (but this is the unit). Of course my reasoning is biased, and is based on several "incidents", but it is strange to observe when in case of flooding or fire, all transferred to the personal showdown of the parties (search for the extreme, compensation from the state, etc.).
I am not talking about when there are massive damage or loss of housing as a result of natural disasters, and tens of billions for recovery are forced to seek in the budget, creating new "holes"in it. As in the case of car insurance, the reduction in the cost of housing insurance is only feasible with the massive coverage of the product (ensuring the profitability of this business).
But also initiatives to adopt the law on compulsory home insurance in Russia do not reach their goal. Yes, it is dangerous to begin to regulate the issue with low incomes of the population, but the existing volunteerism poorly stimulates the development of an insurance culture in the "consumer society".
This year the bill was as close as possible to adoption, it was planned to introduce mandatory purchase of housing policies, as well as subsidies for the poor. Thus, the annual cost of the policy would not exceed $ 20, and as an option would be included in the payment receipts for utilities.
However, the upcoming elections, the unpopularity of such measures in society, and the law is sent to a long "voyage of improvements": voluntary participation, mediation of local governments, covering losses only from natural disasters and so on. Curiously, at scarcity of the budget, what insurance company will undertake it?!
Convinced of the benefits minimize the risks by purchasing insurance policy much more than the disadvantages. Of course, it is a pity that in our days the motivating factor of home insurance should act as a kind of "total commitment" and not a voluntary and rational approach in the management of the property, but it is so.
I just want to add that it becomes easier to receive compensation from insurance companies, the number of securities and terms are reduced, and the main thing is careful familiarization with the terms of the contract before signing. Yes, different home insurance policies include a similar set of risks, but the elements of lawyers ' creativity "exceptions and reservations" can be very expensive.
Competition in the insurance market is not serious, why not take advantage of it? Sometimes some of the clauses of the contract can delete/add directly in the office, and if not, a lot of insurers. It is better to calculate the percentage of risks and the amount of the premium on the aggregate sites or large insurance companies in advance, so that the amount of compensation does not become an unpleasant surprise.