Here’s one more thing to worry about when a fire destroys your home — Comcast.
From NBC 10:
Fire victims from the Riverwalk at Millennium condominium complex told NBC10 and the property management of the apartment complex that Comcast is going to charge residents to replace any cable boxes destroyed in the fire.
NBC 10 contacted Comcast and the company said it’s true.
Fire victims will have to cover the cost, but residents should get reimbursed by their insurance companies, whether they are renters or homeowners.
How much will fire victims have to pay?
“We don’t share specific information about our costs, but they can vary depending on the type of box — HD boxes, Digital Video Recorder, etc. We’re doing all we can to accommodate our customers who were affected by the fire,” a Comcast spokes person said.
“They have agreed to extend the due date for charges related to the damaged boxes until Nov. 15, which does allow the insurance companies for these residents time to process the claim and provide residents with funds for which to pay that due,” said Lauren McDonald from Riverwalk Property
Comcast says they’re not going to bill the fire victims for the cable they’re not watching and will waive future installation fees.
Comcast Charging Residents For Equipment Lost In Condo Fire [NBC 10] (Thanks, Steve !)
Conshohocken Apartment Fire Ruled Accidental
[MyFoxPhilly]
(Photo: WTXF )
More From Consumerist
-
Comcast Tech Saves Sleeping Customer From Fire
-
Comcast Knows Your Storm-Ravaged House Might Explode, Would Really Like Its Cable Box Back
-
These 8 Remaining Worst Company In America Contenders Sure Are Elite
-
Meet Your Worst Company In America Not-So-Sweet 16!
-
Boston Mayor To FCC: Please Don't Listen To Comcast
We know your entire life just went up in smoke, and we are sure it is going to take you a while to get back on your feet, so you don’t have to pay us for another month, isn’t that great?
Who says corporate compassion doesn’t exist.
@SigmundTheSeaMonster: Agreed. I despise people who are too cheap to buy renters’ or homeowners’ insurance (or believe it will “never happen to them”), then lose all their belongings/home to a fire and cry for donations and public assistance to get them back on their feet.
If you are honestly too poor to afford insurance (probably meaning you don’t have a lot of expensive things) or if you are hit with a calamity that insurance doesn’t cover (or worse: if the claims department is denying a legitimate claim) that’s one thing. But if you lose your belongings because you are too stupid to get insurance, don’t come whining to me.
@SpdRacer: Insurance covers (new) replacement value, not the actual value of the item, so “used” item price isn’t applicable.
And who is the “victim”? There was a fire started by accident, and even if someone doesn’t have insurance it probably wouldn’t be too hard to get money from the construction company. Comcast is 100% right to expect compensation, and they’re giving a pretty big window of time to get the payment in for payment delay concerns.
Then again, this is Consumerist, and any opportunity to put up a headline that slams Comcast will be jumped on regardless of the merit of the story.
@bobpence:
You can get insurance for just about anything. It would likely be less expensive for everyone involved if you required your lessees to ensure that your equipment was included on their insurance policies.
You could do this, and then when you get your own insurance covering the same equipment your rates will be lower as your insurance company won’t expect to normally have to pay if your lessees insurance coverage does.
Wow. Two coworkers of mine lived in that complex – one of them lost absolutely everything. I guess part of that money we raised for him will go to Comcast. Awesome.
@SpdRacer: It’s more the fault of the people who live there than it is Comcast’s. How much control does Comcast have over whether there’s a fire in your building? None. You at least have some — you can avoid smoking in bed, playing with matches, etc….
@Colage: That depends on your insurance. By default, most homeowner’s insurance only covers “fair market value.” You have to pay more if you want replacement value.
Consider the car analogy — if your 15-year-old Honda Accord is totaled, do you get a new Accord, or just the value of the old one?
We are all awfully socialist today. Rich people should have to pay for everything. We could overhaul the entire civil judicial system. From now on all civil cases will be decided this way: “Plaintiff, how much money do you have?” Defendant, how much money do you have?”
“Plaintiff has more money, so Plaintiff loses. Pay the Defendant”
Actually, the judicial system seems works exactly opposite this, but we try not to be so transparent about it.
My cable box survived the fire, and when I was finally allowed to return ‘home’ the management told me that I would receive 4 days free rent for my firetrap, er, apartment.
Having stood there and watched the way that place burned I would never spend another night there. The alarms didn’t work, the sprinklers didn’t work, the place burned like a fireworks display. The fire infrastructure in that part of conshohocken was totally inadeaquate, they had to run hoses from six to eight blocks away, across the railroad tracks!! They were supposed to pump water out of the river but the fire company could only get one pumper to actually pump.
But I’m supposed to move back in like nothing happened. Oh, and on top of evertyhing else, I found out that the place was built on a toxic waste site.
Comcast is the least of my problems right now.
Yeah my issue is not that Comcast wants their money. It’s that they are asking for it this quickly. something tells me that Comcast “grace” period should be about six months until these families even begin to truly recover from this fire that they did not cause.
Stay classy Comcast… you bunch of losers.
I have to agree with others. Sounds like Comcast is trying to pass on the charge on to the insurance companies. Why should they have to eat the cost on something that was being rented by the customer? If you justify them eating the cost for that, then you’re opening the door to Comcast paying for any loss of the box, including owner incompitence.
While I’m no fan of big business and Comcast has proven themself to be a heartless monster, I’m really seeing nothing wrong with this on their part. Sounds more like it might be somebody’s attention grab to try and guilt Comcast into crediting them for their device so they don’t have to go through the insurance company.
There is only one way I can see for comcast to pay for the box replacement. They should pay, only if it is found that a faulty cable box started the fire. But this is not the case.
It looks like some workers did a poor job at fixing some railings. Whatever company that was should pay all damages.
Comcast should not have to eat the cost of these because they are somehow at fault; they should eat the cost because it’s the right thing to do.
I suspect that renters insurance will go a long way to replacing a lot of destroyed items, but I doubt if it will cover the cost to replace everything.
I suppose expecting compassion is too much to expect from a multi-million dollar company. Oh well – let’s add 2 parts insult to the 1 part injury.
BrianDaBrain: @sprocket79: Actually, this is not true. Boxes cost cable companies anywhere from $250-$750 per box.
Someone, somewhere along the line is getting ripped off.
$250 wholesale for a basic standard def cable box? Um, no.
@axiomatic: November 15 is about 3 months – that’s plenty of time for an insurance claim. It’s not like someone has to be in a positive mental state to cut a check.
@cf27: Auto insurance is different from property insurance; property is supposed to replace the insured items whereas auto more or less “buys” the car from you.
@SpdRacer:
This is why people have insurance. Comcast shouldn’t have to eat it, but neither should the renters. If the renters are responsible, they have insurance, and it’s not a cent out of their pocket. If they don’t have insurance, they allowed someone else’s property to be destroyed while in their care, and despite the lack of intent, it’s their responsibility to replace that property.
The only thing Comcast should fear is the lawsuits they may ultimately get over somebody dying while trying to retrieve their cable box while their house burns down around them.
@lordargent:
I don’t mean to be adversarial, but what kind of expertise do you have in electronics manufacturing and systems design that lets you know how much these boxes do or don’t cost?
As someone who works for an electrons manufacturer, and has some measure of understanding about the complexity and costs of these devices, I’d say $200 to $500 cost for a SD or HD box is realistic.
As a comparison point, when I had a major house fire back in 2003, it completely melted the central station of my ADT security system (no, I didn’t have fire detection included) and completely coated the inside and outside of my Dish Network receiver with an oily soot.
When I called to cancel both accounts, neither company asked to be paid for the destroyed hardware, even though they were rented. ADT asked to come to the house to get the hardware back; I told them they were welcome to the re-hardened plastic goo and burned out metal case. They said never mind. When I told Dish Network the receiver was destroyed by soot, they also said they didn’t want it back.
So yeah, although Comcast is within its right to ask for reimbursement for their boxes, they’re jerks for doing so.
@Consumerist-Moderator-Roz: Considering that Comcast was the rightful owner of the destroyed cable boxes, aren’t they a victim here?
I actually live down the street from where this fire was. All tenants were required to have renter’s insurance. While there is a big scuffle b/c some had lapsed, most people should be covered for the damages.
Maybe not the most tasteful way to do things, considering this fire was so fierce it literally burnt buildings to the ground, but understandable at least…
those boxes cost anywhere between 100-400 bucks… so yeah. expen$ive.
What’s the big story? Fire destroyed their boxes and they have to replace them. That’s life. I wouldn’t expect Comcast to pay for them. I just hope the renters have insurance. Most renters don’t buy it.
@RulesLawyer: How is that a comparison? You had a fire in a house that destroyed what was in your house and only your house (or, I imagine, your house and one or two others) whereas that building probably had 200 units in it. I’m sure Comcast would probably not gripe about eating the cost of one box, but when the losses start reaching into the $50,000 range they can probably be excused for not wanting to write it off.
They (Comcast) aren’t insurers and shouldn’t have to eat the cost of it.
@Colage:
“Auto insurance is different from property insurance; property is supposed to replace the insured items whereas auto more or less ‘buys’ the car from you”
Wrong. I lost most of my worldly possessions in Katrina. My insurance covered the “fair market value” of the items. Not the replacement value. And then the amount was based on the limits of the “contents” portion of the flood policy, in may case $60k. So my insurance company gave my wife and I $60k for items that cost us $150k when new.
Even now, on my homeowners insurance I can opt for “fair market value” of the house, or pay a larger premium and get “replacement” value. The default position in ANY policy is “fair market value”. So unless your homeowners policy is for “replacement” value, and your house burns down, your insurance company is not going to build you a new one. They will cut you a check for the fair market value and be on their way.
You know, with all the horrible PR for Comcast, you’d figure they would be like “hey, let’s get some positive PR and let’s go above and beyond and replace these guys cable boxes for free! Sure, it’ll cost a few grand for us to replace them, but a few grand for such positive PR will get us more customers and existing customers won’t think we are monsters!”.
Instead, they go the “Hey, let’s piss off everyone again!” route.. yet again. Or as I like to call it, the Comcast Route.
@gaya2081: I work down the street from the Riverwalk and had toured it back when I was looking for a place to live. At no point do I recall them ever saying renters insurance was required. In fact, none of the apartments I’ve ever lived in have (although I’m not stupid, I’ve always gotten insurance anyway). And trust me, anybody living in that complex definitely had the means to afford insurance. That place wasn’t cheap.
But I agree with the majority here. Comcast is being more than reasonable by giving the residents until November to pay for their boxes. They can’t be expected to just eat the cost of that much gear.
I’m not a big fan of Comcast, but I can’t argue with them on this one. They shouldn’t have to eat the cost of hundreds of damaged converter boxes. However, does anyone know how it was determined that Comcast will charge residents for boxes? Was information obtained based on a customer contacting Comcast, or did Comcast pre-emptively make a public statement?
@SkokieGuy: Disclosure: I work in the cable industry. But I still don’t see why people are so hot to buy a cable box. It’s not like a cable modem where you can buy one for under $50. New set tops with features like DVR go for well over $500 to the cable companies – and that is with them buying millions a year. What price do you think that translates to for a single buyer at retail? Never mind that they are effectively obsolete in 2-3 years. Thanks but I’d rather pay the rental charge.
@SkokieGuy: It’s called CableCARD. I own my TiVo3 and I rent a $5 card from Comcrap to have it on their network.
(PS. It hurts to say it, really really hurts, but I’m with about 95% of the commenters and I’m with Comcast on this one… when I had an apartment, Renter’s Insurance was under $100 a YEAR.)
@Xerloq:
How can you prove something to be an “act of god?”
Don’t you have to first prove that there IS a “god” in order for something to be an “act of god”
I’m going to agree with the majority for once and say that Comcast is not at fault and should not have to eat the cost of this. The cost should come out of the tenant’s renter’s insurance, and if the tenant did not have renter’s insurance, that is the price you pay for not having insurance.
Can’t blame Comcast for this one.
Also, my husband calls this place The Communist. Reading the sensationalized headline and the general tone of the article which believes that Comcast should suck it up plus the Comment Enforcer saying we’re all “blaming the victim” (or coming close to it) because we want people to be responsible makes me think he’s right. Personal responsibility is greatly lacking nowadays, and yet it’s the first step toward being a good consumer, and this place is still called The Consumerist, not The Communist, right?
i think whoever the fault the fire is should have to pay for it. comcast should go after that party.
Can’t wait to see them take on “Act of God”.
I think Comcast is missing out on a big source of income here. Why doesn’t Comcast sell insurance on their boxes? They can charge customers an extra…say…$20 a year to insure the box against fire, theft and other damages. I have three boxes and I certainly don’t want to pay for them if my house burns down!
As much as I hate to say it, Comcast IS in the right here. If a fire destroys your home, it’s not their responsibility. This is EXACTLY what homeowners insurance was created for. The fact that they’re not charging for the cable or installation fees is good enough on their part.
@Sudonum: I’d imagine you need to re-read your insurance policy. A microwave (for example) doesn’t have a “fair market value” (whereas, say, a house or a car does) – there’s no market for used microwaves. If an insurance company is trying to say that your 10 year old, $50 microwave is worth $10 now because that’s what you’d get on the market for it, you should be disputing it.
@SpdRacer:
Actually, Comcast has action, and can expect to be paid by the people that were renting the box. Thats why they had dealings with. Now that can be the insurance company, whom the homeowner pays to take on that risk.
IF this was not an accident, then the homeowner could then sue for damages (that would include the cost of the box). Comcast can not because they did not have a contract with the person who, in this scenerio, was liable for starting the fire.
In either case, Comcast is in the right, like most people are saying.
@JollyJumjuck: And, to make a side note, if you can afford upgraded cable (many apartments come with basic cable for free, and then you only need a box for “fancy” cable), you can afford $10/mo for renter’s insurance.
@rockintom: Expecting good customer/public relations from a company isn’t unreasonable, but I have to say that in this case, while it’d be classy, it isn’t necessarily the “right” thing to do (i.e., it’d be advantageous, but there’s no moral imperative). Funny thing, though; most multi-million-dollar companies have great customer service. It’s the multi-billion-dollar ones who get voted the second-worst company in America.
Personally, I think Comcast should credit these customers the money they’ve paid in rental for these units and charge them the remainder. When I set up my renters insurance, I had to think about how much I thought I would need to replace everything, then double it. The cable box was not on my mind when I did so, meaning most of these renters probably weren’t thinking about replacing their cable box, either. I think that while Comcast is justified in having the units replaced, they are also going to make out quite well on this if they charge the replacement price.
I’m the last person to defend Comcrap, but I can’t fault them here. Someone’s gotta pay for it, and if you don’t have insurance, that’s your problem, not theirs.
@Sudonum: I think that homeowners policies must vary quite a bit – maybe depending on the nature of the claim.
A few years ago, my house was burglarized, and I sat on the phone looking up prices on the internet with a claims person on the phone. TV, DVD player, etc. We “shopped” for equivalent replacements, and she totaled it up and that was my check amount (minus deductible).
Maybe there are different reimbursement rates for weather/acts-of-nature – type claims??
I don’t see how any one can think that comcast should pay considering when you get the service you sign a contract stating you’re liable for the box if it gets destroyed while in your possession.
One of the big things ruining the republic (and yes the u.s. is a republic not a democracy. Well at least it’s supposed to be.) is the attitude that if making people live up to their responsibility and or contractual obligations might hurt their feelings it’s some how morally wrong to do so.
My local cable franchise, owned by comcast, has the sh!ttiest cable boxes, digital explorer 8000. The things cannot be “worth” more than 80 bucks. I’m sure Comcast would ask for 800…
These people probably are going to pay more than their boxes are worth.
@Colage:
A microwave does have a fair market value, just ask the IRS when a restaurant starts to depreciate one. Using your appliance example, my refrigerator had a “fair market value” of approximately 50% of what we had paid for it 5 years prior. And no, it’s not just big ticket items. It’s all of your possessions. Unless you have something that is collectible and therefore an appreciating asset, your insurance company will give less than you paid for it under the standard terms of most policies.
@glycolized:
Maybe your policy was for “full replacement value”? rather than “full market value”? You can pay more for such a policy. Or you had a sympathetic adjuster. Some adjusters are independent contractors.
Trust me I learned way more than I wanted to about insurance after Katrina. “Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted” and I got lots of experience.
@Sudonum:
Oh, and if you do have something collectible, better get a separate rider for it with an appraisal, or the insurance company will not recognize it as such and will try to give you less than you paid for it. Same for any expensive jewelry you may own.
@Xerloq: Agreed. Comcast should be going after the construction company that started the fire, not the renters.
My house burned down a few years ago, and i had the same type of problem, except with Directv. I had two receivers that I bought in 2005, and they got completely destroyed, and Directv tried to charge me $300 per box because I didn’t send them back in. They claimed that I had entered into a lease agreement with them when I bought the receivers, even though they didn’t have their “all receivers are leased” policy in place when the receivers were purchased. And the fun part was that they wouldn’t look up my records to find out when those receivers were activated, and all my receipts got destroyed in the fire, so I had no way to prove what I was claiming. Long story short, I used a lot of advice I found on this site, and after six months, they reversed the charges and gave me six months of free premium service for being a good customer.
As far as this story goes, however, if these people entered into a rental agreement for the boxes, Comcast, for once, seems to be in the right.
lordargent: I don’t mean to be adversarial, but what kind of expertise do you have in electronics manufacturing and systems design that lets you know how much these boxes do or don’t cost?
I’ve worked with component engineers for 11 years (I’m a software engineer, but I know enough to figure around what a device should cost part wise. Royalties are a different matter).
I’d say $200 to $500 cost for a SD or HD box is realistic.
$200-$500 sounds reasonable retail for a HD box.
But for a SD box wholesale, it sounds like a ripoff. Which makes me think one of the following is going on.
1) Comcast charging them the retail (vs wholesale) price to replace the boxes.
2) There is some sort of “replacement” fee meant to prevent box theft that’s tacked on automatically.
/It’s just like cable modems. The cable company will rent a cable modem to you for ~$5-$10 per month, but actually buying the cable modem retail is only ~$70. Even back when cable modems were $120, it was better to buy one outright in the longterm.
/Bought a series 3 tivo, so I don’t deal with POS cable boxes anymore (now it’s POS cable cards
).
Comcast is horrible, so that’s why I use Time Warner Cable, which sucks less.