Nikon raises prices and LIES about the cost of raw materials increasing

On 1/30/2016 6:46 PM, nospam wrote:

snip


...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...


If you do that, unless the financial institution made a serious error,
the loan will be due and payable in full.
What's your point?


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...


If you do that, unless the financial institution made a serious error,
the loan will be due and payable in full.

not always.

What's your point?

read it again.

On 1/30/2016 7:00 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-01-30 23:46:40 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2016013015345093904-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not
sure
what
you
meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it.

not always.

In California proof of insurance is a requirement for annual
registration.

http://www.dmv.org/nh-new-hampshire/car-insurance.php
New Hampshire is among a small handful of states that has no
mandatory car insurance laws.

So? I don't live in NH and I don't believe we have too many NH
residents lurking in this NG.

so what?

the point is that insurance is not always required.

http://www.dmv.org/va-virginia/car-insurance.php
Virginia law requires that all drivers have a way to pay for injuries
or property damage resulting from a car accident. You can satisfy
this financial responsibility law by EITHER:
? Purchasing car insurance.
? OR
? Paying Virginia's Department of Motor Vehicles to drive uninsured.

http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/car-insurance.php
Buying car insurance is the most common way to fulfill your financial
responsibility requirements, but it isn't your only option.

Other options to meet the requirement include:
? A $35,000 cash deposit with the CA Department of Motor Vehicles.
? A Certificate of Self-Insurance from the DMV.
? A surety bond of $35,000 from any company licensed to do business
in CA.

So? There isn't a free ride? You either have to buy insurance or you
have to self-insure. $35,000 isn't going to get you very far in this
age of litigation, but if you want to gamble go ahead.

i don't make the rules.

if you think it's too low, contact the state of california and get them
to raise it.

I think it is just fine, but you might find yourself making up the
difference if you lose in court in a case where you will have to pay for
counsel, rather than have an insurance company deal with that little
detail. I know what I can afford, and I can't afford to self-insure.

If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment.

it usually is, but the point is that it's not required.

If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

that's because the lender owns a portion of the property.

...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...

Granted? Don't you mean repaid?

BTW: Do you own a home clear, or are you making mortgage payments?
...or are you renting?


Change just one letter and you have an accurate description of nospam.
Change renting to ranting.

--
PeterN

On 1/30/2016 7:11 PM, nospam wrote:
In article 2016013016002698200-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:


If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment.

it usually is, but the point is that it's not required.

If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

that's because the lender owns a portion of the property.

...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...

Granted? Don't you mean repaid?

no. i mean granted.

a lender may want insurance on a property for which they're loaning
money, but after that, it's possible to cancel the insurance and not
cause problems.


Tell us how. Every liability policy written, in the United States has a
clause requiring the carrier to notify any named entity with an
insurable interest in the property, of the cancellation.
But, I forgot, you KNOW everything.


--
PeterN

On 01/30/2016 07:16 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-01-31 00:02:22 +0000, Me said:


snip
Is this true then - that only 17% of California homeowners have
earthquake insurance?
http://www.latimes.com/la-homeauto-story1-story.html

Earthquake insurance like flood insurance isn't mandatory in California.
One can certainly weigh the risks and forego that coverage. However, I
have experienced a magnitude 6.5 earthquake in my home and consider
myself fortunate that California building codes minimized damage.
That said I have optional earthquake insurance which will provide me the
means to rebuild or repair damage. I do not have a punitive deductable
and my annual premium is reasonable and affordable. So I am probably
among that 17%.

Here in southwest Indiana, we are on a fault line, so I have earthquake
insurance. But because my building is masonry and over 100 years old
(doesn't flex like wood, and pre-earthquake building codes), I have no
option but a 10% deductible.

In the 20 years I've been here, we've had two tremors and no damage.
--
Ken Hart

On 01/30/2016 07:44 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment.

it usually is, but the point is that it's not required.

If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

that's because the lender owns a portion of the property.

...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...


When I had a mortgage, my mortgage holder required proof of insurance
annually. The insurer was required to notify the bank if I canceled my
insurance. At one time, I changed insurance companies, the new insurer
didn't notify the bank quickly enough, and the bank threatened foreclosure.

so what? i didn't say every single lender.

the fact is that some check and some don't.

Quite obviously, I haven't checked "every single lender", but any lender
that doesn't protect it's interest in the loan collateral is an idiot.

If, for example, you had a home valued at a couple million, and you got
a remodeling loan for $15K, the lender may be satisfied with just a lien
and not require proof of insurance. But that would be an edge case.

Come to think about it, when I had a vehicle loan, my lender required
that I carry both collision and comprehensive insurance. (Collision
required by the state to cover the other driver, comp required to pay
off the lender.)

--
Ken Hart

On 2016-01-31 01:54:18 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Me
wrote:

Apart from the catastrophic human toll, I shudder to think of the
financial ripple-effect of a major California quake if so many are
uninsured - and particularly if of those uninsured, then mortgage
lenders are exposed.

california will be fine because buildings and other structures are
built to withstand quakes.

Which California do you live in?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/2003_San_Simeon_earthquake_damage.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Cypress_structure.jpeg
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1488720!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_1200/loma-prieta-earthquake-1989.jpg
https://latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/fa_1099_0120freewaydamage970.jpg
http://lang.dailynews.com/socal/quake/0112_nws_LDN-L-NORTHRIDGE-QUAKE-REMEMBER.jpg

the

big problem is when (not if) a quake hits the midwest or east coast
usa. many of the buildings are unreinforced brick that were built
hundreds of years ago which will turn to rubble. it will be a *huge*
catastrophe.

....and if there is a repeat of the New Madrid quake that will happen.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/30/2016 7:16 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-01-31 00:02:22 +0000, Me said:

On 31/01/2016 11:58, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-01-30 22:37:03 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not
sure what
you
meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it.

not always.

In California proof of insurance is a requirement for annual
registration.
If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment. If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

Is this true then - that only 17% of California homeowners have
earthquake insurance?
http://www.latimes.com/la-homeauto-story1-story.html

Earthquake insurance like flood insurance isn't mandatory in California.
One can certainly weigh the risks and forego that coverage. However, I
have experienced a magnitude 6.5 earthquake in my home and consider
myself fortunate that California building codes minimized damage.
That said I have optional earthquake insurance which will provide me the
means to rebuild or repair damage. I do not have a punitive deductable
and my annual premium is reasonable and affordable. So I am probably
among that 17%.


Don't lenders typically require earthquake insurance in CA?


--
PeterN

On 1/30/2016 7:44 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment.

it usually is, but the point is that it's not required.

If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

that's because the lender owns a portion of the property.

...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...


When I had a mortgage, my mortgage holder required proof of insurance
annually. The insurer was required to notify the bank if I canceled my
insurance. At one time, I changed insurance companies, the new insurer
didn't notify the bank quickly enough, and the bank threatened foreclosure.

so what? i didn't say every single lender.

the fact is that some check and some don't.


Give some examples of those that don't. It would be a rare exception,
requiring an unusual set of facts, where insurance would not be required.


--
PeterN

On 2016-01-31 01:54:20 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...

Granted? Don't you mean repaid?

no. i mean granted.

a lender may want insurance on a property for which they're loaning
money, but after that, it's possible to cancel the insurance and not
cause problems.

That is absolutely incorrect for any bank or mortgage firm that I've
ever heard of. The mortgage holder will require that the homeowner
insurance carrier notify them if there is a change. If your coverage
lapses, the carrier will notify the mortgage holder. If you change
carriers, the new carrier will notify the mortgage holder.

then you haven't heard of all of them.

no surprise there. this isn't the first time you've pretended to know
everything.

The mortgage holder may require you have them pay your homeowner
insurance premium and add an amount to your mortgage payment.

i've seen taxes included in the monthly payments but not insurance
premiums.

Ever hear of PMI?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenders_mortgage_insurance

If you allow the homeowner's insurance to lapse, the mortgage contract
will usually contain a clause that allows them to demand full payment
of the remaining balance owed.

usually = not always.

you're confirming what i said, yet you argue anyway. that's ****ed up.

BTW: Do you own a home clear, or are you making mortgage payments?
...or are you renting?

what does that have to do with anything? this isn't about me.

Because it's suspected that you live in Mommy's basement and don't
know about such things.

more of your insults.

it's all you can do when you know you're on weak ground.

You want to weasel out of this as you usually do when wrong? Tell us
you were thinking a private financing by an individual as in
"rent-to-own" or "owner financing". It'll be a lie, but it's a weasel
you can use.

i'm not wrong and i have the documents to prove it.

i own a house and a rental property, the latter of which did not have
property insurance for a period of time for reasons that are not
important and the bank did not say a thing. nothing at all.

So you have insurance now?
Hmmm...

all they cared about was that the mortgage payments were made on time,
which they were.

so yes, insurance *can* be cancelled without causing problems.

i'm sure you'll keep on arguing anyway.


--
Regards,

Savageduck