• solstice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    At least with the house on the cliff example it’s the insurance companies paying for it though right? Hopefully their premiums were priced appropriately and the insurer doesn’t raise everyone else’s rates to cover their folly. I’ve no doubt they would if that’s the case, but I presume their actuaries did a decent job computing that risk so who knows.

    • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m fairly sure, but have no evidence, that the argument is “the council approved these plans therefore it’s the council’s fault my house is falling off the cliff”. Floating over the fact that the council approved a plan where there was 50m of vegetation securing the cliff edge… All of which has mysteriously disappeared over the last 15 years.

      Also apparently caveat emptor is only for poor people.

      • solstice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What council? Wouldn’t their insurance be on the hook then? Eventually somewhere an insurer has written a policy for that $10m cliff side house. Per my previous point, hopefully their actuaries accurately priced the risk.

        • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry. I lapsed into some specifics of my locale. Didn’t realise I was in world news.

          We have city councils. They are responsible for approving building plan/permits. They tend to be either unless pedantic or grossly negligent.

          There’s been a trend here to blame that council for when a property becomes uninhabitable. E.g. by a cliff face eroding over time, accelerated by actions of the property owner.