Found this kindof funny! Want to insure those cigars? Think again...
A Charlotte lawyer purchased a box of costly cigars and insured them against flood, storm damage and, of all things, fire. Needless to say, his investment went up in (happily inhaled) smoke within a month, after which the lawyer filed a claim with his homeowners insurance company that he was owed compensation because "the cigars were lost in a series of small fires". The insurer refused to pay, assuming (correctly) that the man had smoked the pack himself. A judge ruled, however, that since the insurer had never stated what was considered to be "unacceptable" fire the company did, in fact, owe him $15,000 to replace his property.
The insurance company paid the claim, but they got their own back in the end. The lawyer was then arrested, sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine for 24 counts of arson and insurance fraud. (as told at www.swapmeetdave.com)
Ain't life grand?
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Insurance To English Translations
Here are a few common terms used in insurance that have us saying "What the heck does that mean!?" I will occasionally post new terms. If you have one that you are wondering about, let me know and I will give it my best.
1> Actual Cash Value: This means that your damaged or destroyed property will be replaced at it's current value: Cost new - Depreciation. If you want your property valued at what you paid for it, then you should consider purchasing insurance at Replacement Cost.
2> Coinsurance: In Property insurance, a coinsurance clause requires the policyholder to insure their property to a percentage of it's actual value. If the percentage to value is not met then there can be a penalty paid by the insured at the time of a loss.
3> Deductible: The amount that the insured must pay before insurance will pay anything.
4> Reinsurance: Insurance that an Insurance Company buys to protect itself from paying out catastrophic claims. Who are the Reinsurers of your Insurance Company? That is considered when assigning a financial rating to an insurer. If your Insurance Company does not use solid Reinsurers then you run the risk of their inability to pay out on a large claim.
5> Umbrella Policy: Provides coverage for losses that go beyond the limit of underlying insurance policies such as your Liability and Auto Limits. The Umbrella policy sometimes provides broader coverage and may cover something that is excluded from your primary limits. In this case, a Self Insured Retention would apply which is similar to a deductible.
1> Actual Cash Value: This means that your damaged or destroyed property will be replaced at it's current value: Cost new - Depreciation. If you want your property valued at what you paid for it, then you should consider purchasing insurance at Replacement Cost.
2> Coinsurance: In Property insurance, a coinsurance clause requires the policyholder to insure their property to a percentage of it's actual value. If the percentage to value is not met then there can be a penalty paid by the insured at the time of a loss.
3> Deductible: The amount that the insured must pay before insurance will pay anything.
4> Reinsurance: Insurance that an Insurance Company buys to protect itself from paying out catastrophic claims. Who are the Reinsurers of your Insurance Company? That is considered when assigning a financial rating to an insurer. If your Insurance Company does not use solid Reinsurers then you run the risk of their inability to pay out on a large claim.
5> Umbrella Policy: Provides coverage for losses that go beyond the limit of underlying insurance policies such as your Liability and Auto Limits. The Umbrella policy sometimes provides broader coverage and may cover something that is excluded from your primary limits. In this case, a Self Insured Retention would apply which is similar to a deductible.
WELCOME
Welcome to my insurance blog. I hope you will find this to be a useful resource in finding answers to your everyday questions about your insurance policy (I realize that you spend most of your time thinking about insurance) like me. Just in case you don't, I hope you will let me do some thinking for you so that when you are forced to consider what your insurance policy actually protects you for, you might find some answers here.
Please feel free to make comments, ask questions, share a story, invite your friends, etc. I only ask that you do not regard my content as being specific to YOUR individual or business policy. Every insurance policy is different so I will try to write in generalities rather than specifics. Specific questions about YOUR policy should be directed to your Insurance Agent (hopefully me). My sole purpose in creating this blog is to inform and update on current insurance news and issues while trying to make a normally dry/boring subject somewhat interesting and entertaining. It is also a way for me to communicate a large range of information for you to consider at your convenience. Please check back regularly!
Please feel free to make comments, ask questions, share a story, invite your friends, etc. I only ask that you do not regard my content as being specific to YOUR individual or business policy. Every insurance policy is different so I will try to write in generalities rather than specifics. Specific questions about YOUR policy should be directed to your Insurance Agent (hopefully me). My sole purpose in creating this blog is to inform and update on current insurance news and issues while trying to make a normally dry/boring subject somewhat interesting and entertaining. It is also a way for me to communicate a large range of information for you to consider at your convenience. Please check back regularly!
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Book Review: S.P.E.E.D.
This book was sent to me by Matt Schoeneberger, who co-authored it with Jeff Thiboutot. Both have master's degrees in exercise science and health promotion. S.P.E.E.D. stands for Sleep, Psychology, Exercise, Environment and Diet. The authors have attempted to create a concise, comprehensive weight loss strategy based on what they feel is the most compelling scientific evidence available. It's subtitled "The Only Weight Loss Book Worth Reading". Despite the subtitle that's impossible to live up to, it was an interesting and well-researched book. It was a very fast read at 205 large-print pages including 32 pages of appendices and index.
I really appreciate the abundant in-text references the authors provided. I have a hard time taking a health and nutrition book seriously that doesn't provide any basis to evaluate its statements. There are already way too many people flapping their lips out there, without providing any outside support for their statements, for me to tolerate that sort of thing. Even well-referenced books can be a pain if the references aren't in the text itself. Schoeneberger and Thiboutot provided appropriate, accessible references for nearly every major statement in the book.
Chapter one, "What is a Healthy Weight", discusses the evidence for an association between body weight and health. They note that both underweight and obesity are associated with poor health outcomes, whereas moderate overweight isn't. While I agree, I continue to maintain that being fairly lean and appropriately muscled (which doesn't necessarily mean muscular) is probably optimal. The reason that people with a body mass index (BMI) considered to be "ideal" aren't healthier on average than people who are moderately overweight may have to do with the fact that many people with an "ideal" BMI are skinny-fat, i.e. have low muscle mass and too much abdominal fat.
Chapter 2, "Sleep", discusses the importance of sleep in weight regulation and overall health. They reference some good studies and I think they make a compelling case that it's important. Chapter 3, "Psychology", details psychological strategies to motivate and plan for effective weight loss.
Chapter 4, "Exercise", provides an exercise plan for weight loss. The main message: do it! I think they give a fair overview of the different categories of exercise and their relative merits, including high-intensity intermittent training (HIIT). However, the exercise regimen they suggest is intense and will probably lead to overtraining in many people. They recommend resistance training major, multi-joint exercises, 1-3 sets to muscular failure 2-4 days a week. I've been at the higher end of that recommendation and it made my joints hurt, plus I was weaker than when I strength trained less frequently. I think the lower end of their recommendation, 1 set of each exercise to failure twice a week, is more than sufficient to meet the goal of maximizing improvements in body composition in most people. My current routine is one brief strength training session and one sprint session per week (in addition to my leisurely cycle commute), which works well for me on a cost-benefit level. However, I was stronger when I was strength training twice a week and never going to muscular failure (a la Pavel Tsatsouline).
Chapter 5, "Environment", is an interesting discussion of different factors that promote excessive calorie intake, such as the setting of the meal, the company or lack thereof, and food presentation. While they support their statements very well with evidence from scientific studies, I do have a lingering doubt about these types of studies: as far as I know, they're all based on short-term interventions. Science would be a lot easier if short-term always translated to long term, but unfortunately that's not the case. For example, studies lasting one or two weeks show that low glycemic index foods cause a reduction in calorie intake and greater feelings of fullness. However, this effect disappears in the long term, and numerous controlled trials show that low glycemic index diets have no effect on food intake, body weight or insulin sensitivity in the long term. I reviewed those studies here.
The body has homeostatic mechanisms (homeostatic = maintains the status quo) that regulate long-term energy balance. Whether short-term changes in calorie intake based on environmental cues would translate into sustained changes that would have a significant impact on body fat, I don't know. For example, if you eat a meal with your extended family at a restaurant that serves massive portions, you might eat twice as much as you would by yourself in your own home. But the question is, will your body factor that huge meal into your subsequent calorie intake and energy expenditure over the following days? The answer is clearly yes, but the degree of compensation is unclear. Since I'm not aware of any trials indicating that changing meal context can actually lead to long-term weight loss, I can't put much faith in this strategy (if you know otherwise, please link to the study in the comments).
Chapter 6, "Diet", is a very brief discussion of what to eat for weight loss. They basically recommend a low-calorie, low-carb diet focused on whole, natural foods. I think low-carbohydrate diets can be useful for some overweight people trying to lose weight, if for no other reason than the fact that they make it easier to control appetite. In addition, a subset of people respond very well to carbohydrate restriction in terms of body composition, health and well-being. The authors emphasize nutrient density, but don't really explain how to achieve it. It would have been nice to see a discussion of a few topics such as organ meats, leafy greens, dairy quality (pastured vs. conventional) and vitamin D. These may not help you lose weight, but they will help keep you healthy, particularly on a calorie-restricted diet. The authors also recommend a few energy bars, powders and supplements that I don't support. They state that they have no financial connection to the manufacturers of the products they recommend.
I'm wary of their recommendation to deliberately restrict calorie intake. Although it will clearly cause fat loss if you restrict calories enough, it's been shown to be ineffective for sustainable, long-term fat loss over and over again. The only exception is the rare person with an iron will who is able to withstand misery indefinitely. I'm going to keep an open mind on this question though. There may be a place for deliberate calorie restriction in the right context. But at this point I'm going to require some pretty solid evidence that it's effective, sustainable, and doesn't have unacceptable side effects.
The book contains a nice bonus, an appendix titled "What is Quality Evidence"? It's a brief discussion of common logical pitfalls when evaluating evidence, and I think many people could benefit from reading it.
Overall, S.P.E.E.D. was a worthwhile read, definitely superior to 95% of fat loss books. With some caveats mentioned above, I think it could be a useful resource for someone interested in fat loss.
I really appreciate the abundant in-text references the authors provided. I have a hard time taking a health and nutrition book seriously that doesn't provide any basis to evaluate its statements. There are already way too many people flapping their lips out there, without providing any outside support for their statements, for me to tolerate that sort of thing. Even well-referenced books can be a pain if the references aren't in the text itself. Schoeneberger and Thiboutot provided appropriate, accessible references for nearly every major statement in the book.
Chapter one, "What is a Healthy Weight", discusses the evidence for an association between body weight and health. They note that both underweight and obesity are associated with poor health outcomes, whereas moderate overweight isn't. While I agree, I continue to maintain that being fairly lean and appropriately muscled (which doesn't necessarily mean muscular) is probably optimal. The reason that people with a body mass index (BMI) considered to be "ideal" aren't healthier on average than people who are moderately overweight may have to do with the fact that many people with an "ideal" BMI are skinny-fat, i.e. have low muscle mass and too much abdominal fat.
Chapter 2, "Sleep", discusses the importance of sleep in weight regulation and overall health. They reference some good studies and I think they make a compelling case that it's important. Chapter 3, "Psychology", details psychological strategies to motivate and plan for effective weight loss.
Chapter 4, "Exercise", provides an exercise plan for weight loss. The main message: do it! I think they give a fair overview of the different categories of exercise and their relative merits, including high-intensity intermittent training (HIIT). However, the exercise regimen they suggest is intense and will probably lead to overtraining in many people. They recommend resistance training major, multi-joint exercises, 1-3 sets to muscular failure 2-4 days a week. I've been at the higher end of that recommendation and it made my joints hurt, plus I was weaker than when I strength trained less frequently. I think the lower end of their recommendation, 1 set of each exercise to failure twice a week, is more than sufficient to meet the goal of maximizing improvements in body composition in most people. My current routine is one brief strength training session and one sprint session per week (in addition to my leisurely cycle commute), which works well for me on a cost-benefit level. However, I was stronger when I was strength training twice a week and never going to muscular failure (a la Pavel Tsatsouline).
Chapter 5, "Environment", is an interesting discussion of different factors that promote excessive calorie intake, such as the setting of the meal, the company or lack thereof, and food presentation. While they support their statements very well with evidence from scientific studies, I do have a lingering doubt about these types of studies: as far as I know, they're all based on short-term interventions. Science would be a lot easier if short-term always translated to long term, but unfortunately that's not the case. For example, studies lasting one or two weeks show that low glycemic index foods cause a reduction in calorie intake and greater feelings of fullness. However, this effect disappears in the long term, and numerous controlled trials show that low glycemic index diets have no effect on food intake, body weight or insulin sensitivity in the long term. I reviewed those studies here.
The body has homeostatic mechanisms (homeostatic = maintains the status quo) that regulate long-term energy balance. Whether short-term changes in calorie intake based on environmental cues would translate into sustained changes that would have a significant impact on body fat, I don't know. For example, if you eat a meal with your extended family at a restaurant that serves massive portions, you might eat twice as much as you would by yourself in your own home. But the question is, will your body factor that huge meal into your subsequent calorie intake and energy expenditure over the following days? The answer is clearly yes, but the degree of compensation is unclear. Since I'm not aware of any trials indicating that changing meal context can actually lead to long-term weight loss, I can't put much faith in this strategy (if you know otherwise, please link to the study in the comments).
Chapter 6, "Diet", is a very brief discussion of what to eat for weight loss. They basically recommend a low-calorie, low-carb diet focused on whole, natural foods. I think low-carbohydrate diets can be useful for some overweight people trying to lose weight, if for no other reason than the fact that they make it easier to control appetite. In addition, a subset of people respond very well to carbohydrate restriction in terms of body composition, health and well-being. The authors emphasize nutrient density, but don't really explain how to achieve it. It would have been nice to see a discussion of a few topics such as organ meats, leafy greens, dairy quality (pastured vs. conventional) and vitamin D. These may not help you lose weight, but they will help keep you healthy, particularly on a calorie-restricted diet. The authors also recommend a few energy bars, powders and supplements that I don't support. They state that they have no financial connection to the manufacturers of the products they recommend.
I'm wary of their recommendation to deliberately restrict calorie intake. Although it will clearly cause fat loss if you restrict calories enough, it's been shown to be ineffective for sustainable, long-term fat loss over and over again. The only exception is the rare person with an iron will who is able to withstand misery indefinitely. I'm going to keep an open mind on this question though. There may be a place for deliberate calorie restriction in the right context. But at this point I'm going to require some pretty solid evidence that it's effective, sustainable, and doesn't have unacceptable side effects.
The book contains a nice bonus, an appendix titled "What is Quality Evidence"? It's a brief discussion of common logical pitfalls when evaluating evidence, and I think many people could benefit from reading it.
Overall, S.P.E.E.D. was a worthwhile read, definitely superior to 95% of fat loss books. With some caveats mentioned above, I think it could be a useful resource for someone interested in fat loss.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Thank You
I'd like to extend my sincere thanks to everyone who has supported me through donations this year. The money has allowed me to buy materials that I wouldn't otherwise have been able to afford, and I feel it has enriched the blog for everyone. Here are some of the books I've bought using donations. Some were quite expensive:
Food and western disease: health and nutrition from an evolutionary perspective. Staffan Lindeberg (just released!!)
Nutrition and disease. Edward Mellanby
Migration and health in a small society: the case of Tokelau. Edited by Albert F. Wessen
The saccharine disease. T. L. Cleave
Culture, ecology and dental anthropology. John R. Lukacs
Vitamin K in health and disease. John W. Suttie
Craniofacial development. Geoffrey H. Sperber
Western diseases: their emergence and prevention. Hugh C. Trowell and Denis P. Burkitt
The ultimate omega-3 diet. Evelyn Tribole
Our changing fare. John Yudkin and colleagues
Donations have also paid for many, many photocopies at the medical library. I'd also like to thank everyone who participates in the community by leaving comments, or by linking to my posts. I appreciate your encouragement, and also the learning opportunities.
Food and western disease: health and nutrition from an evolutionary perspective. Staffan Lindeberg (just released!!)
Nutrition and disease. Edward Mellanby
Migration and health in a small society: the case of Tokelau. Edited by Albert F. Wessen
The saccharine disease. T. L. Cleave
Culture, ecology and dental anthropology. John R. Lukacs
Vitamin K in health and disease. John W. Suttie
Craniofacial development. Geoffrey H. Sperber
Western diseases: their emergence and prevention. Hugh C. Trowell and Denis P. Burkitt
The ultimate omega-3 diet. Evelyn Tribole
Our changing fare. John Yudkin and colleagues
Donations have also paid for many, many photocopies at the medical library. I'd also like to thank everyone who participates in the community by leaving comments, or by linking to my posts. I appreciate your encouragement, and also the learning opportunities.
Dissolve Away those Pesky Bones with Corn Oil
I just read an interesting paper from Gabriel Fernandes's group at the University of Texas. It's titled "High fat diet-induced animal model of age-associated obesity and osteoporosis". I was expecting this to be the usual "we fed mice industrial lard for 60% of calories and they got sick" paper, but I was pleasantly surprised. From the introduction:
20% fat is less than the amount it typically takes to make a rodent this sick. This leads me to conclude that corn oil is particularly good at causing mouse versions of some of the most common facets of the "diseases of civilization". It's exceptionally high in omega-6 (linoleic acid) with virtually no omega-3.
Make sure to eat your heart-healthy corn oil! It's made in the USA, dirt cheap and it even lowers cholesterol!
CO [corn oil] is known to promote bone loss, obesity, impaired glucose tolerance, insulin resistance and thus represents a useful model for studying the early stages in the development of obesity, hyperglycemia, Type 2 diabetes [23] and osteoporosis. We have used omega-6 fatty acids enriched diet as a fat source which is commonly observed in today's Western diets basically responsible for the pathogenesis of many diseases [24].Just 10% of the diet as corn oil (roughly 20% of calories), with no added omega-3, on top of an otherwise poor laboratory diet, caused:
- Obesity
- Osteoporosis
- The replacement of bone marrow with fat cells
- Diabetes
- Insulin resistance
- Generalized inflammation
- Elevated liver weight (possibly indicating fatty liver)
20% fat is less than the amount it typically takes to make a rodent this sick. This leads me to conclude that corn oil is particularly good at causing mouse versions of some of the most common facets of the "diseases of civilization". It's exceptionally high in omega-6 (linoleic acid) with virtually no omega-3.
Make sure to eat your heart-healthy corn oil! It's made in the USA, dirt cheap and it even lowers cholesterol!
Lindeberg on Obesity
I'm currently reading Dr. Staffan Lindeberg's magnum opus Food and Western Disease, recently published in English for the first time. Dr. Lindeberg is one of the world's leading experts on the health and diet of non-industrial cultures, particularly in Papua New Guinea. The book contains 2,034 references. It's also full of quotable statements. Here's what he has to say about obesity:
I'd recommend this book to anyone who has a scholarly interest in health and nutrition, and somewhat of a background in science and medicine. It's extremely well referenced, which makes it much more valuable.
Middle-age spread is a normal phenomenon - assuming you live in the West. Few people are able to maintain their [youthful] waistline after age 50. The usual explanation - too little exercise and too much food - does not fully take into account the situation among traditional populations. Such people are usually not as physically active as you may think, and they usually eat large quantities of food.The only obese Kitavans Dr. Lindeberg observed were two people who had spent several years off the island living a modern, urban lifestyle, and were back on Kitava for a visit.
Overweight has been extremely rare among hunter-gatherers and other traditional cultures [18 references]. This simple fact has been quickly apparent to all foreign visitors...
The Kitava study measured height, weight, waist circumference, subcutaneous fat thickness at the back of the upper arm (triceps skinfold) and upper arm circumference on 272 persons ages 4-86 years. Overweight and obesity were absent and average [body mass index] was low across all age groups. ...no one was larger around their waist than around their hips.
...The circumference of the upper arm [mostly indicating muscle mass] was only negligibly smaller on Kitava [compared with Sweden], which indicates that there was no malnutrition. It is obvious from our investigations that lack of food is an unknown concept, and that the surplus of fruits and vegetables regularly rots or is eaten by dogs.
The Population of Kitava occupies a unique position in the world in terms of the negligible effect that the Western lifestyle has had on the island.
I'd recommend this book to anyone who has a scholarly interest in health and nutrition, and somewhat of a background in science and medicine. It's extremely well referenced, which makes it much more valuable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)