Too bad they didn’t work out something along the lines of ‘if you don’t subscribe to the $75, and then need us, you will be charged $1000, or something like that.
But then...maybe most people wouldn’t pay the $75 playing the odds that their house wouldn’t catch fire.
Interesting situation.
The least the firemen could do would have been leave rather than sit and watch the house burn down.
They could have put it out and sent him a bill. It would hav been a lot more than $75.
Please tell me how you get fiancing with any bank with this clause? Let's see ... we have 1,000 homes in this area - and if 10% of them catch fire, we'll make some money....
Couldn't you make the legal arguement that any charge above $75 is now 'gouging' or 'extortion'? You don't walk into the insurance company after your home is flooded and waive around a $125 check, demanding retro-active Flood insurance coverage, do you?
***Too bad they didn’t work out something along the lines of ‘if you don’t subscribe to the $75, and then need us, you will be charged $1000, or something like that.***
Our fire dept has that kind of an arangement. Often rural houses are uninsured as they are too far away from a fire hydrant. As a result, fire ins companies will not insure them, and only the water the fire truck has on it is used, which often is not enough.
When the city water lines came through I had a fireplug put in my front yard, and got lower ins rates. I also pay my fire dues.
Perhaps the firemen were ready to keep the neighboring homes from catching fire and burning down ... at least the ones where the $75 had been paid. That would be my guess. There was really no other reason to show up.