|
Grex > Oldcoop > #21: Grex Board of Directors Meeting: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 13 new of 37 responses total. |
glenda
|
|
response 25 of 37:
| 
Sep 26 11:56 UTC 2003 |
I recently received a letter from my insurance company that rates were going
to be going up 40%-65% across the board for house insurance. Due to some new
legislation or some such. I asked my agent if it was just this particular
company or all. She said all.
Expect them to really go up next year.
|
jp2
|
|
response 26 of 37:
|
Sep 26 12:27 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 27 of 37:
|
Sep 26 15:05 UTC 2003 |
I don't regard the insurance companies as likely to be fleecing Grex,
specifically. No one is getting rich by increasing our premiums from
$300 to $525 per year.
|
other
|
|
response 28 of 37:
|
Sep 26 15:28 UTC 2003 |
True. The increase is merely a reflection of the sad state of the
industry and the national economy.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 29 of 37:
|
Sep 26 15:39 UTC 2003 |
Re 26. Yeah, I'm really falling over myself trying to win that contest :P
|
gull
|
|
response 30 of 37:
|
Sep 26 16:01 UTC 2003 |
Essentially the insurance companies are in a "can't lose" situation.
They play the market with our premiums. If the market goes up, they
pocket the profits. If the market goes down, they raise premiums to
cover their losses.
|
other
|
|
response 31 of 37:
|
Sep 27 00:03 UTC 2003 |
That applies to the industry as a whole, but theoretically, individual
companies can still lose if they don't remain competitive with other
companies in the industry.
What's missing in the scenario with which we are faced is the kind of
competition between companies which assures that consumers like us can
still get the essential insurance we need. It is very difficult in this
environment to accept that there is no (illegal) collusion in the
provider side of the market.
|
richard
|
|
response 32 of 37:
|
Sep 27 02:59 UTC 2003 |
what would be the consequences if grex just dropped its insurance coverage
altogether?
|
other
|
|
response 33 of 37:
|
Sep 27 03:43 UTC 2003 |
We'd be in violation of the terms of our lease. We'd probably be liable
for breach of contract, and would very likely be given a deadline by
which to either provide proof of insurance or get out of the Pumpkin.
That is, assuming the landlord found out. Of course, doing it and just
hoping the landlord didn't find out would be criminally stupid.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 34 of 37:
|
Sep 27 04:59 UTC 2003 |
(Whether the landlord found out, we would still be in violation of the terms
of our lease.)
|
richard
|
|
response 35 of 37:
|
Sep 28 01:23 UTC 2003 |
so are you saying that an advantage of future co-location would possibly be
not having a lease requiring grex to carry insurance? thats a pretty strong
argument for moving if true
|
gelinas
|
|
response 36 of 37:
|
Sep 28 02:11 UTC 2003 |
So far, it's been true: none of the co-location providers we've talked to have
required us to have insurance to protect their premises.
|
jesuit
|
|
response 37 of 37:
|
May 17 02:14 UTC 2006 |
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
|