Mat-Su cabin burns down and fire dept would not respond! (Ketchikan: homeowners insurance, mortgage)

[blueflames50]

Yikes...this will generate lots of questions! WTF???
Are you required to have homeowners insurance by the banks in Alaska if you have a mortgage??? If so will they pay for a burned down home if the fire dept did not respond because you are outside the fire limit area? This would be a good thing to let new prospective off the grid people know!!
here's the story link:

http://www.adn.com/3437/story/1079875.html

[Big G]

This is nothing unusual. I have seen many, many similar stories over the years throughout the United States.

What they did was standard practice for voluntary fire protection districts. They will save lives for free. If you want your property saved, you need to pony up ahead of time.

If they *did* put out the fire, they would have removed any incentive for ANYONE to pay their contribution to the fire brigade. It's a reflection of human nature, not the cold-heartedness of the firemen.

[Marty Van Diest]

Originally Posted by Big G

This is nothing unusual. I have seen many, many similar stories over the years throughout the United States.

What they did was standard practice for voluntary fire protection districts. They will save lives for free. If you want your property saved, you need to pony up ahead of time.

If they *did* put out the fire, they would have removed any incentive for ANYONE to pay their contribution to the fire brigade. It's a reflection of human nature, not the cold-heartedness of the firemen.

Exactly correct

[AKStafford]

Being a "cabin" means there's a good possibility that there was no mortgage and that he had built it out of pocket. In the Miller's Reach fire of '96, a lot people who lost homes had built them as they could afford to and had no insurance.
When these situations happen (and I think this is at least the 3rd one in the past year that's made the papers) the fire department points out that if they are out of the service area fighting a fire, and a home INSIDE the fire area (where people are paying extra in the their property taxes for the protection) burns, it puts them in a position of being liable. (Hello lawsuit!)
If I go to McDonalds and say no thanks to the french fries with my burger, I can't walk over to someone else's table and grab their fries.

[Barkingowl]

That's why people live near lakes, ponds & rivers...

[gobrien]

I would think the homeowner's insurance company would require information on fire protection availability prior to covering loss from fire, just like they do for people living in flood plains and the like. I don't think that insurance coverage would be offered for cabins in areas like this if they weren't members of the plan.

[stiffnecked]

When we first moved to Ketchikan if you lived on the north end you either had to pay Pond Reef FD $250 a year to be a member or they would not respond. We knew a family that tried to pay as the firefighters protected the houses on both sides of theirs as theirs burned to the ground. It's just a fact of life in some parts of Alaska.

[DannyL]

Originally Posted by stiffnecked

When we first moved to Ketchikan if you lived on the north end you either had to pay Pond Reef FD $250 a year to be a member or they would not respond.

good grief, that's a bargain.

[roadfamily6now]

I'm still a little confused.

He lived just outside the palmer fire service area, there fore he SHOULD have been covered by a volunteer fire service IF there was one.
I think the story was very unclear.

We lived in Delta Junction for 8 years. DH was on the volunteer force. That is ALL they had. they would come to your home if you had a fire no matter what. But it was paid for by man hours as opposed to tax dollars and I do think they charged for their service AFTER the fact. (i suppose insurance might have covered part of that fee)

[Marty Van Diest]

He was OUTSIDE the fire service area. If he had been INSIDE the area he would have been covered.