Burnt houses of politicians and insurance

One obtains third party insurance to a car because it is mandatory. But if that person does not obtain insurance covering other perils, that means ‘if something happens to the vehicle the person can bear the loss’. This is the basic principle when one buys General Insurance products. If the car gets involved in an accident, even as a total loss if the owner has sufficient financial strength he or she can opt not to insure.

This is the same with regard to house and contents. Un-insured properties mean that the person can afford to repair or replace them if damaged or stolen.

During the Tsunami even to employees of our own company we applied the same principle when their houses were damaged. If they had obtained the Earthquake cover, no questions asked, full claim was paid. If anyone had obtained even basic Fire and Allied Perils, they were also paid a certain percentage. And those who had not obtained any insurance had to depend on other welfare schemes.

This should be the principle we adopt with regard to politicians whose houses were destroyed or damaged.

If they had not taken at least fire insurance that implies that they have sufficient economic means to replace, or repair their houses.

In that case, how can they ask for the Government to pay to repair it?

DS