Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I have always been of the opinion that Bookmaking and Insurance Company,s are very similar,
A Bookmakers offers the terms based on the odds against the client collecting when they have a return on there gamble,
Bookmakers terms are very simple compared with the terms of Lloyds, of London
Bookmakers have get out clauses but at no time do they ever claim an act of GOD.
This is similar to the concession on 1st past the post, the Bookmaker will pay on the winner or the second, as long as the second that gets the race, had the same jockey as when he started, the same weight, or went the same course,
What would Bookmakers be doing now if they had bet against it not being able to get a flight out of a holiday destination for 7 days.
And could god be called upon to join the Ibas Committee. for the day
cubone
A Bookmakers offers the terms based on the odds against the client collecting when they have a return on there gamble,
Bookmakers terms are very simple compared with the terms of Lloyds, of London
Bookmakers have get out clauses but at no time do they ever claim an act of GOD.
This is similar to the concession on 1st past the post, the Bookmaker will pay on the winner or the second, as long as the second that gets the race, had the same jockey as when he started, the same weight, or went the same course,
What would Bookmakers be doing now if they had bet against it not being able to get a flight out of a holiday destination for 7 days.
And could god be called upon to join the Ibas Committee. for the day
cubone
Show More
Main difference is insurance is based on principle of indemnity (I.E. covers you for your loss) and gambling contracts are illegal in insurance.
orchadist gambling debts are legal the thread was asking in a round about way is "Who is the most honest" when honouring a payout.
In the case of the Icelandic claims for days the Ins industry have been looking every were for a get out.
You give a bookmaker money hoping to win. You give an insurance company money hoping to lose.
worked in insurance for 46 years and the list of more honest professions includes: double glazing salesmen, estate agents, second hand car salesmen, back street pornographers.....
but gambling contracts are illegal in insurance - you can't "bet" on someone else dying, you must have an insurable interest - boring but true !
but gambling contracts are illegal in insurance - you can't "bet" on someone else dying, you must have an insurable interest - boring but true !
efiseo in the case if insurance on a death policy the client who thinks what you say is a real MUG punter.
if i am correct every policy has been well thought out and even incidents un expected are factored in, so in the case of people being stuck for days in a holiday resort.
An event like the one taking place now, was known as a possibility
and even asmall % factor would have been there,
If so how can they claim the stupid, ACT OF GOD. get out clause.
An event like the one taking place now, was known as a possibility
and even asmall % factor would have been there,
If so how can they claim the stupid, ACT OF GOD. get out clause.
Insurance and Financial services is quite interesting in that if you ask the public if they they trust the industry they all reply no. If you ask them if they trust their financial advisor they nearly always say yes!!!????
I worked 25 years in the industry aand feel that for the most part both the companies and individuals served the public pretty well, certainly in comparison the estate agents etc.
I worked 25 years in the industry aand feel that for the most part both the companies and individuals served the public pretty well, certainly in comparison the estate agents etc.
I agree lukehart and really this should be tested in court - trouble is you would have to have a small fortune to consider going to court
lukeheart there is no insurance on death. It is Assurance.
swift tuttle i menioned the poss of a class action in my blog, as there are enough that will lose out by those claiming the "ACT"
Legal def of A O G
An event which is caused solely by the effect of nature or natural causes and without any interference by humans whatsoever.
Or, as set out in Tennant v. Earl of Glasgow, (House of Lords, 1864):
"Circumstances which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility, and which when they do occur, therefore, are calamities that do not involve the obligation of paying for the consequences that may result from them."
best of luck with the class action
An event which is caused solely by the effect of nature or natural causes and without any interference by humans whatsoever.
Or, as set out in Tennant v. Earl of Glasgow, (House of Lords, 1864):
"Circumstances which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility, and which when they do occur, therefore, are calamities that do not involve the obligation of paying for the consequences that may result from them."
best of luck with the class action
As a racing punter, I would say the majority of independent bookmakers are more honest than the majority of insurance companies
It would be good not to have to pay any form of insurance. Most of the insurance you pay is wasted money in that the risk you are providing for does not occur.
In the film Witness, the Amish community provided help for each other if it was needed, eg a house needed building, the community would build it and ask for nothing in return except presumably that the occupants of the house participated in similar self-help schemes in the future for the good of the community. Anyone know the Amish stance on Betfair?
In the film Witness, the Amish community provided help for each other if it was needed, eg a house needed building, the community would build it and ask for nothing in return except presumably that the occupants of the house participated in similar self-help schemes in the future for the good of the community. Anyone know the Amish stance on Betfair?
Many years ago, a relative of mine wrote the definitive work on re-insurance which is exactly the same as 'laying-off' as the bookies would have it. He admitted to me that he dressed it up in somewhat technical and flowery language to make it sound more complicated than it actually is. Some say - though I wouldn't know the details - that the Lloyds crash of the early 90s was caused, in part, by those who refused to lay-off their risks in the prescribed manner. Onbviously, they stood to make greater profits if they didn't lay off. We all know what happened next...
Nearly on topic, we live in France and operate on a barter system with some services due to the higgh levels of social contributions i.e the same as NI in blighty. For example we looked after a smallholding for 3 weeks and were paid with eggs,wine, wood and 2 lambs for the freezer. This type of transaction is now commonplace here and works well.
You can hardly criticise them for having an 'act of god' clause. The whole concept of insurance is based on the idea of a pool of money which covers someone for their loss by paying out of the pool which is built by people paying premiums.
Since it began they had to exclude instances where they could have most of their insured claiming at the one time. So they excluded 'acts of god' and instances of war. Otherwise the entire pool would be wiped out and insurance would cease to exist.
If they didn't they would be responsble for paying for the cost of WW1 and WW2 damage to entire countries or cities wiped out by meteor strikes etc.
Next time you want to be covered by 'acts of god' you tell your insurer at the time then come on here and moan about the massive premium they wished to charge you.
Since it began they had to exclude instances where they could have most of their insured claiming at the one time. So they excluded 'acts of god' and instances of war. Otherwise the entire pool would be wiped out and insurance would cease to exist.
If they didn't they would be responsble for paying for the cost of WW1 and WW2 damage to entire countries or cities wiped out by meteor strikes etc.
Next time you want to be covered by 'acts of god' you tell your insurer at the time then come on here and moan about the massive premium they wished to charge you.
FBS What will happen if you dont believe in God.
I will ask the Kid who got hung in the 50s, when he was not guilty.
As it is big odds n I will be there before you I will ask.
I will ask the Kid who got hung in the 50s, when he was not guilty.
As it is big odds n I will be there before you I will ask.
shrewd dude how we got around that in the 40w we had very tight limits 50/1 a treble. etc.
What about the millions of people who were insured got wiped out every member of a family and they became what bookmakers call Sleepers.
Now don't tell me they don't have sleepers in the insurance game
What about the millions of people who were insured got wiped out every member of a family and they became what bookmakers call Sleepers.
Now don't tell me they don't have sleepers in the insurance game
Insurance companies:
Rule No. 1 - Go to any lengths to avoid paying out
Rule No. 2 - Refer to Rule No. 1
Rule No. 1 - Go to any lengths to avoid paying out
Rule No. 2 - Refer to Rule No. 1
Can't agree with you wilson. I have a major claim in progress (£25K+) which was dealt with instantly, no questions, no hassles. Naturally my premium has been increased but only by £5 per month. Service has been excellent throughout.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539