|
Date: 8/1/2002 4:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 55496
Agree..... If the boxes are replaced free of charge the cost would have to be passed on to new users or higher charges for existing customers but there is a case for allowing time to pay ie by reasonable instalments. Does the house insurance not cover or is flood damage in this area an exception. |
Date: 8/1/2002 4:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 49498
I guess I agree with what you're saying also..  |
Date: 8/1/2002 6:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 38278
That makes sense.  |
Date: 8/1/2002 6:03:00 AM
From Authorid: 46527
I think Time Warner will be well enough insured against such losses that they have NO need to do this, yet another example of the big organisations greed.  |
Date: 8/1/2002 7:00:00 AM
From Authorid: 19173
I agree with LSR. I'm sure time warner can write the loss off without feeling to much pain. A company of that size doesn't need to kick people while they are down.  |
Date: 8/1/2002 7:00:00 AM
From Authorid: 30229
Well, that would be covered under the individual's homeowners policy, IF they put the flood rider on it.. if they didnt, then as sad as it sounds, I guess they have to pay. It isnt their fault, of course, but it isnt Time Warner's either.. and it WAS their equipment.. so yep, I agree..   |
Date: 8/1/2002 7:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 59751
I guess I'm one of the few that disagree. I don't feel that the customers should be liable for the full $300.00. Yes, they should pay something but not the entire amount. It's not as if someone damaged it on purpose or decided to use it as a trampoline. This was a horrible act of nature. I feel as though they customers should pay for some and Time Warner eat the rest of the cost. Goodness knows they can afford it!  |
Date: 8/1/2002 7:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 49689
I would have to disagree with them paying for them..I do agree with LSR..Time Warner would be compensated by there insurance company,and i'm sure that the boxes are insured for way more than there actual value,so who is to say that Time Warner will not collect the $300.00 from the customer as well as filing a claim with there insurance company and collect another XXXX amount of dollars from them.....  |
Date: 8/1/2002 7:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 53748
I believe that those boxes are insured incase of loss or damage I do not feel that these people should be held liable for the damage since the cable box would be the last thing on anyones mind to save in a situation like that.  |
Date: 8/1/2002 8:23:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 27360
I can see both sides of the issue. If I were Time-Warner I would probably just cut my losses. Still if I hypothetically lent one of the flood victims my lawn mower i think I would want them to compensate me.  |
Date: 8/1/2002 8:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 25828
no i'm not for it. that was a natural disaster and something like that should at the very least be covered by federal funding if they MUST be reimbursed.  |
Date: 8/1/2002 10:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 277
If they were smart they would of had renters insurance that covered flood damage. I think they should have to pay.  |
