Bill Roberts (not verified) -
Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 12:07pm
thought so. that's a good policy. Just had a thought.....could an insurance company refuse payment on an associated claim because the rail isn't up to local code? Would that create a loop hole. AS we all know, insur. co. are good at finding loop holes to avoid payment.
things that make ya go hmmmmmmmmmmm
bill
PS....nice use of design elements, noticed that your rail uses five repeating elements. And that's counting the twisted picket. Cool element that you get just by repositioning the pairings. OPPS........forgot the rosette, and the untwisted picket. Five elements. :)
thought so. that's a good
thought so. that's a good policy. Just had a thought.....could an insurance company refuse payment on an associated claim because the rail isn't up to local code? Would that create a loop hole. AS we all know, insur. co. are good at finding loop holes to avoid payment.
things that make ya go hmmmmmmmmmmm
bill
PS....nice use of design elements, noticed that your rail uses five repeating elements. And that's counting the twisted picket. Cool element that you get just by repositioning the pairings. OPPS........forgot the rosette, and the untwisted picket. Five elements. :)