I am not saying anyone did something illegal or fradulent, but, that to place a claim for full value of a loss then do nothing to repair the loss in unethical.Dan-I swear I am not trying to be a smart-ass, or even really to change your mind, but I don't get why this would be unethical.It seems to me that when you contract with an insurer, you are contracting against the loss of value in an item (for whatever reason). Why should you be obligated to repair/replace that item after the loss?What if the item is one-of-a-kind, is otherwise irreplacable (holding sentimental value), or simply no longer is something you desire (but otherwise maintains value). For example, if someone is divorced and has their old wedding band stolen, should they have to get a new one? If not, should they be obliged to get some other jewelry, even if they don't especially want to?If my mother's house was destroyed (by a tornado or something), and she decided to move in with other family rather than buy/repair a house, would that be wrong?And in this case, would you find it less objectionable if Nickie bought paint and touched the car up herself? I am not sure I see why this would make an ethical difference, but it might fall into the definition of 'not fully repairing' that you have said is more ethical.-brad
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra