• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

Faithful with a Few

  • Start Here
  • Blog
  • About
  • Contact
  • Start Here
  • Blog
  • About
  • Contact

home insurance

Pay For Spray: Firefighters Let Another House Burn Down Over $75

By //  by Khaleef Crumbley

Some of you may remember the story about firefighters allowing a house to burn and pets die over $75 last year. Well, the pay for spray policy strikes again. It happened once again with the South Fulton, Tennessee fire department.

Another homeowner was forced to watch their house, and many possessions, burn to the ground, all because they didn’t pay the $75 “pay for spray” fee (known as a “fire subscription fee”). And, according to reports by WPSD, firefighters were right there watching as well.

Were The Firefighters Wrong?

The point of this article isn’t really to debate the actions of the firefighters in this particular case, but if you want to know my opinion, you have to read what the article revealed about Vicky Bell (the homeowner) first…

Bell and her boyfriend admitted they were aware but thought this would never happen to them.

They knew what the policy of the South Fulton fire department was, but they choose to ignore the fire subscription fee and simply take their chances. Now that their terrible gamble has come back to hurt them, they want the rules to be ignored and everyone to feel sorry for them.

I have sympathy for them because I know what it is like to make a horrible decision and live to regret it. However, they have no right to blame anyone else for their circumstance. They intentionally ignored the fee, and now they have to deal with the consequences. This is similar to the recent phenomenon of elderly foreclosure “victims” (although, sometimes even Bank of America foreclosures go wrong).

The Need For A Pay For Spray Policy

Since some of the rural areas in Obion County are too small to be able to support a fire department of their own, the city of South Fulton is kind enough to make their firefighters available to them. Instead of the residents seeing an increase in their property taxes, they are simply asked to pay an annual fire subscription fee of $75.

This way, they are helping to offset some of the operating costs of the fire department – especially since they now have the added responsibilities that come from servicing other areas. If someone doesn’t want to pay to support the fire department, then they don’t have to.

The mayor of South Fulton, David Crocker, stated that if they do not collect the fire subscription fees, then they can’t survive. He also noted that if they make exceptions to this rule, no one will ever pay the fee.

The Moral Dilemma With Pay For Spray

If a homeowner doesn’t pay the fee (whether by choice or if they forgot), then they are not able to access the services of the fire department for that year.

It is quite common for the residents of a rural community to pay a fee to the fire department of a nearby city, in order to secure their services.

As with the case of Gene Cranick in 2010 (the article I linked to above), the firefighters were simply following the rules and obeying orders. I’m sure that it was extremely difficult for them to fight their natural instincts and training, in order to properly carry out their duties.

The moral dilemma is simply the fact that they had to stand by and watch a home burn to the ground. They were not able to help by putting out the fire, or even trying to save some of the home owner’s possessions.

Every time someone who didn’t pay the fee suffers loss from a fire – and the fire department didn’t help them – there is a public outcry. Many people talk about how immoral and despicable the firefighters were, and declare that they should have helped the people despite their refusal to pay the fee when it was due.

A debate naturally ensues, between those who feel that the homeowner shouldn’t expect to get a service that he refused to pay for, and those who feel that the firefighters should have risked their jobs and lives no matter what!

I can see both sides of the argument, but I think there is something else which must be considered first.

Pay For Spray And Insurance

Here is what I wrote last year when making this comparison:

This is no different than insurance: You pay a fee (premium) for protection from a future event that may or may not happen. If the event happens, you’re covered; if it doesn’t, you don’t get your money back. No insurance company will let you wait until your house burns down to take out a policy! You must have the coverage BEFORE the incident.

Since Vicky Bell (the homeowner), decided not to take out a policy, she wasn’t eligible to file a claim  [on the service] when she faced an emergency! I can’t get into a car accident without insurance, but then expect an insurance company to provide me with their service during an accident (even if I tell them that I’ll pay on the spot)! There are smarter ways to save money on car insurance.

You can’t have people decide not to pay, but be given the option to pay the fee at the time of an accident. As, Mayor David Crocker stated, doing this will remove the incentive for people to pay beforehand. This would ultimately lead to the fire department not receiving enough funds to cover the additional operating expenses associated with adding new towns to their responsibilities (unless there happens to be an abundance of fires in the rural communities).

Whether it’s home contents insurance, natural disaster insurance, hurricane preparedness, or any other consumer insurance information or coverage you can think of; you need to ensure that you are prepared for the worst (even if you plan to use an emergency fund to cover damages) at all times. Having regrets and trying to pass the blame won’t help you get through a disaster!

I think we can find a way to satisfy the insurance element of it being optional, as well as the moral dilemma that comes when “uninsured” homeowners are in danger of losing their homes.

How To Fix Pay For Spray

Treat it like other emergency services. There are two emergency situations which immediately come to mind. Health problems dealt with in the emergency room of a hospital, and roadside assistance.

The great thing about both health insurance, and roadside assistance is that they greatly reduce (and in some cases eliminate) the costs associated with the emergency service. In both of these cases, you are not required to buy insurance ahead of time (this maintains the “optional” quality of the pay for spray fee).

However, if you need emergency treatment or to have your car towed, you can still access the service, but you will be charged the full cost!

The same can be done with the pay to spray fee. Give homeowners the option of paying the $75 premium at the beginning of the year. If they choose to pay it, then they will be covered for the full cost of the fire department services they consume during that year. If they don’t consume any, they don’t get their money back; as is the case now.

If someone who chooses to forgo coverage has their home catch on fire, they can still receive the service, but they will be charged the full cost! I am not sure what it costs to send a team of firefighters with trucks and expensive equipment to put out a fire, but I’m sure it’s a lot more than $75.

This way, we will never have a case where firefighters watch as a house burns to the ground. Also, most homeowners will choose to pay $75 each year for a service they most likely will not use, rather than pay thousands or tens of thousands of dollars when they actually need it.

Before the firefighters put out the fire of someone who refused coverage, that homeowner would have to agree to it. If someone doesn’t want to pay all of that money, they can choose to let their home burn to the ground.

There are probably two objections to this stipulation:

What If A Neighbor’s House Is In Jeopardy?

If there is a chance that the fire will spread to a neighbor’s home, then it must be put out, no matter what the desire of the uninsured homeowner is. They will then be billed for the full cost.

We have to make sure that one uninsured homeowner doesn’t cause a financial burden for his neighbors. This is why many states require car owners to have at least liability coverage on their vehicles.

What If The Homeowner Isn’t Home?

If the uninsured homeowner isn’t home and their house catches on fire, the fire department will automatically put it out. This will guard against it spreading while they are waiting for them to come home. Also, this is necessary to ensure that there are no unresponsive people trapped inside.

If someone was unconscious and in the middle of the road, they would immediately be rushed to an emergency room. No one would sit around and wait for them to wake up so they could be asked if they want to go, and if they agree to pay whatever the costs are.

We would do the same thing for an uninsured home that caught on fire. Err on the side of caution and take care of the emergency, even when it’s not 100% clear if the person actually wants help.

How Would The Fire Department Guarantee Payment?

This would be handled as any other unpaid debt. First, it would how up as a negative record on their credit report. Then, the fire department would simply put a lien against the house, for the amount of the debt as well as any debt-collection costs.

Think about what would happen. If he wasn’t willing to pay for the service – meaning that he was willing to lose his house and have it burn down – then he would just lose his house to the fire department instead of to the fire.

Most likely, they would have some level of insurance on their home. It can be mandated that the fire department receive their payout directly from the insurance award, unless other arrangements are made ahead of time.

On the other hand, if he actually wanted to have his house saved, he would be willing to work out a payment plan with the fire company. Then none of the debt collection measures would need to take place.

Having these procedures in place would encourage most of the residents to agree to the $75 fee (or insurance premium), since they understand the consequences. It would also ensure that no one who wanted or needed emergency services would be deprived of them, even if they don’t initially buy the coverage.

It also allows the fire department to be able to receive enough money to extend their area of service, and be fully reimbursed when they have to provide their services to someone who chose not to contract with them.

photo by dvs

What Do You Think?

  1. Do you think the firefighters were wrong for not ignoring the regulations and their orders?
  2. Should the homeowner(s) be held fully responsible for this loss?
  3. What do you think about this proposed solution to the pay for spray policy?
  4. Do you live in a town that has to contract with another city for emergency services? If so, has this ever happened?

Filed Under: Commentary, Insurance Tagged With: burn, car insurance, david crocker, fee, finance, fire department, fired, firefighter, firefighter watch, firefighters, health insurance, home insurance, house, house burning, houses, Insurance, pay, pay for spray, pay to spray, retained firefighter, south fulton, spray, types of insurance, uninsured in the united states, vicky bell

Why You May Need Natural Disaster Insurance

By //  by Khaleef Crumbley

Although most homeowners have a basic homeowners insurance policy, or even home contents insurance, many do not have natural disaster insurance. However, with the recent destruction from Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Lee, the importance of being fully covered has been made clear.

Why You Need Natural Disaster Insurance

If you only have a standard homeowners policy, you’re not covered for damage to your home or possessions in the event of an earthquake. This includes the damage occurring from the shaking and cracking associated with earthquakes and aftershocks. You would have to take out a separate earthquake insurance policy in order to be covered.

According to the Insurance Information Institute, many standard homeowners policies will cover you for direct losses due to fire, lightning, tornadoes, wind storms, hail, explosions, smoke, vandalism and theft. However, the limits may not be enough to fully cover all of your damages.

Many policies will also limit the amount of coverage due to damage from hurricanes and other windstorms as well. It is best to contact them ahead of time and find out exactly what your coverage entails. Then make sure that you follow a hurricane preparedness guide in order to minimize damage.

Flood damage is not included in your homeowners policy, so you will have to take out natural disaster insurance if you live in a flood-prone area. Flood insurance is actually provided by the federal government, and administered by the Federal Insurance Administration. Flood insurance also covers the damage that you incur as a result of a mudslide.

Another thing to consider is having the proper motor insurance. Many times we only focus on our homes, but many people have their cars destroyed during natural disasters; so it makes sense to ensure that you have the proper coverage ahead of time.

How Much Natural Disaster Insurance Do I Need

Like most types of coverage, if your home is destroyed, your natural disaster insurance policy will pay you for the “actual cash value” of your home (the replacement cost minus depreciation). The key is to make sure that your coverage amount will be enough for you to rebuild.

It would be wise to do some research on building costs before you choose your amount. One thing to keep in mind is that costs may be inflated (you may even have to deal with price gouging) because of the increased demand for contractors and building materials after a natural disaster!

Also, be sure not to use the purchase price of your house as a basis for your calculation. The market price of your house includes the value of the land on which the house is situated. Most likely, the land will still be there after a disaster, so it would be a waste of money to include its value in your coverage calculation.

What About An “Acts Of God” Insurance Policy?

The term “acts of God” is not specifically mentioned in homeowners policies, so it can mean different things to different people. However, it is usually used to describe natural disasters (such as tornadoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes) as opposed to man-made destruction such as theft and negligence.

Therefore, you will not be able to find a specific “acts of God” insurance policy, but you will be able to cover yourself by purchasing natural disaster insurance. While you’re checking into all of this coverage, be sure to get a few life quotes as well. The most tragic part of any disaster is the loss of life – especially when a family is left behind with nothing.

photo by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Northeast Region

Filed Under: Insurance Tagged With: coverage, damage, earthquake insurance, environment, expatriate insurance, federal insurance, flood insurance, home insurance, Insurance, insurance information institute, motor insurance, natural disaster, natural disaster insurance, property insurance, types of insurance

The Importance of Home Contents Insurance

By //  by guest

(The following is a guest post on behalf of Money Supermarket.)

It can be a case of trial and error with many of the expenses associated with owning or renting a property.While shortcuts are readily taken when it comes to things like DIY, there are times when it’s in your best interests to play it safe and by the book. Like when the topic of whether or not to invest in homeowner’s insurance and home contents insurance arises.

The Benefits Of Home Contents Insurance

Yes, it involves paying year on year and we probably all agree that this is money we’d rather put towards a holiday, a new car, or even student loan repayments. However, the benefits of getting home contents insurance far outweighs the risks.

The peace of mind alone is priceless, as you know that if something goes wrong – whether through any fault of your own or otherwise – there are certain procedures and protocols in place to protect you and your family, and safeguard your investment. Then there’s the fact that, in the long run, it could end up saving you a small fortune if a curve-ball is thrown your way and you end up having to make a substantial claim, which is not as uncommon as you may think.

What To Look For When Shopping For Home Contents Insurance

Buildings and contents insurance should cover a range of universal themes, although it is advisable to check and double check with an insurer before handing over any of your hard-earned cash if you’re worried or concerned about anything in particular.

By starting a policy, it ought to mean that the cost of repairing or rebuilding your home or any outbuilding like a shed or garage in the event of the unthinkable happening will be covered. The list of possible scenarios is endless, from storm damage to fire damage or frozen pipes to burst pipes.

If you’re forced out of your house while any work needs to be carried out, then the insurer will often pay for you and your loved ones to find alternative accommodation on a temporary basis. Some companies offer a 24-hour emergency helpline as well for an additional fee to cover things like a boiler breakdown.

Home contents insurance means that your belongings are covered against theft and accidental damage. Items like carpets and furniture can be expensive to buy in the first place, so the last thing you want is to be facing a bill to replace them because you didn’t take out the right insurance policy. The contents of your freezer, garden and shed could even be included, too, so be sure to check the terms and conditions and read the small print in order to be fully aware of exactly what you are paying for.

photo by think4photop

Filed Under: Insurance Tagged With: benefits, content insurance, contents insurance, Economics, finance, financial economics, get home contents insurance, home contents insurance, home insurance, homeowners, Insurance, property insurance, types of insurance

Homeowner Forecloses On Bank Of America After Illegal Foreclosure By Bank Backfires

By //  by Khaleef Crumbley

Yes, the title of this article is correct. After the North Carolina based Bank of America foreclosure procedure backfired, the homeowner was able to foreclose on the bank!

Bank Of America Foreclosure Gone Wrong

According to a story on Digtriad.com, the Bank Of America foreclosure was filed against the home of a couple who didn’t even have a mortgage. This is another reason why becoming a cosigner on a loan is so risky (lenders make terrible mistakes all the time)! They owned their home outright! The couple said they paid cash for the house:

The case went to court and the homeowners were able to prove they didn’t owe Bank of America anything on the house. In fact, it was proven that the couple never even had a mortgage bill to pay.

What I want to know, is what in the world make BOA believe that the couple owed them money on this home, when they never even had a mortgage (this is the reason why I am trying to pay off debt)! It’s really bad when buying a home with cash is as risky as investing in Brazil!

Since it was the bank that filed this wrongful foreclosure, they were ordered by the judge to pay the legal fees of the homeowners.

I guess you’re wondering how did it go from BOA owing them a few thousand dollars, to the homeowners being able to foreclose on the bank!

Bank Of America Foreclosure In Reverse

From this point on, the story looks identical to Bank of America foreclosure proceedings, except now the bank is the one who owes a debt:

After more than 5 months of the judge’s ruling, the bank still hadn’t paid the legal fees…”They’ve ignored our calls, ignored our letters, legally this is the next step to get my clients compensated, ” attorney Todd Allen told CBS.

So, now the bank is the one who is late paying a debt, and refuses to even work with the homeowner! Well, what do you do when someone (or some company) legally owes you money, refuses to pay, refuses to speak to you, and owns property? You seize their assets!

Sheriff’s deputies, movers, and the Nyergers’ attorney went to the bank and foreclosed on it. The attorney gave instructions to to remove desks, computers, copiers, filing cabinets and any cash in the teller’s drawers.

This had to be an amazing scene. Could you imagine seeing all of the bank’s cash (damaged money and all), furniture, equipment, and workers all sitting out on the lawn? Fortunately, it didn’t have to go that far; although, this should have been settled months ago!

The wrongful Bank of America foreclosure is what caused this mess in the first place, and now they don’t want to pay the homeowner what they rightfully deserve!

Here is how this hilarious situation ended:

After about an hour of being locked out of the bank, the bank manager handed the attorney a check for the legal fees.

I’m sure they have to deal with a lot of people who owe them hundreds of thousands of dollars, but still fight against the foreclosure process (as if they did nothing wrong); but that wasn’t the case here! They should have written out this check as soon as the judge ordered them to pay the homeowner’s legal fees!

photo by MoneyBlogNewz

Reader Questions

Do you feel that the homeowners had a right to foreclose on the bank?

Are you as upset as I am about BOA failing to pay the money which they owed?

Am I the only one who wanted to see the bank’s property out on the lawn and sidewalk?

Filed Under: Housing Tagged With: bank, bank of america, bank of america foreclosure, boa, buying a home, cbs, cosigner, equity stripping, finance, foreclosure, foreclosure procedure, foreclosure proceedings, home insurance, lenders, loss mitigation, money, mortgage, mortgage bill, north carolina, Personal Finance, real estate, real property law, wrongful foreclosure

Copyright © 2021 · Mai Lifestyle Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in