TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 Fitgirl Repack

TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 Fitgirl Repack Free Download PC Game

TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 Fitgirl Repack Free Download PC Game final version or you can say the latest update is released for PC. And the best this about this DLC is that it’s free to download. In this tutorial, we will show you how to download and Install TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 Torrent for free. Before you download and install this awesome game on your computer note that this game is highly compressed and is the repack version of this game.

Download TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 Fit girl repack is free to play the game. Yes, you can get this game for free. Now there are different websites from which you can download TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 igg games an ocean of games are the two most popular websites. Also, ova games and the skidrow reloaded also provide you to download this awesome game.

TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 for Android and iOS?

Yes, you can download TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 on your Android and iOS platform and again they are also free to download.

Also Read:

How To download and Install TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020

Now to download and Install TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 for free on your PC you have to follow below-given steps. If there is a problem then you can comment down below in the comment section we will love to help you on this.

  1. First, you have to download TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 on your PC. You can find the download button at the top of the post.
  2. Now the download page will open. There you have to log in. Once you login the download process will start automatically.
  3. If you are unable to download this game then make sure you have deactivated your Adblocker. Otherwise, you will not be able to download this game on to your PC.
  4. Now if you want to watch the game Installation video and Troubleshooting tutorial then head over to the next section.

TROUBLESHOOTING

Screenshots  (Tap To Enlarge)

 Now if you are interested in the screenshots then tap down on the picture to enlarge them.
Train Simulator 2020
TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 Fitgirl Repack

TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 Review, Walkthrough, and Gameplay

Greetings and welcome to a TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 fitgirl repack! And today we’re headed back to the ‘TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 PC download with this boxy beast right here: the Monorail PC, an all-in-one desktop computer that first hit the market in November of 1996. [Windows 95 startup sound plays] Despite its bulky metal case making it look like a piece of industrial equipment, the Monorail was a low-cost desktop PC intended for first-time computer users. And for a short period in time, they were the new hotness, with Monorail being the 14th leading manufacturer of desktop TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 growing at a rate of 50% per quarter, and looking to become a $2 billion company by 2003. Unfortunately for them, that didn’t happen, but this machine is still a notable footnote in personal computer history. The first reason is its unprecedented design, packing a Pentium compatible motherboard, desktop-sized CD-ROM, floppy drive, and hard drive, and a color LCD monitor all into one unit.

The second thing setting it apart was pricing, with the original Model 7245 first going on sale in 1996 for just $999. At the time, that was a magic number for a TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 PC with a monitor included. So the Monorail was not only one of the cheapest complete systems around, but it was perhaps the first all-in-one desktop with a built-in LCD, predating computers like the Compaq TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 game download 3020 by nearly a full year. And obviously, before Apple’s iMac G5 by a good eight years, that didn’t arrive until 2004. Of course, the Monorail is a way TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 igg games guy by comparison, but the underlying idea is the same. Adjustable LCD screen up front, optical drive bay on the side, I/O section with all your ports around back. Even its “sealed case” maintenance philosophy is very Apple-Esque, with Monorail intending it to only be upgraded by the manufacturer, voiding the warranty if you opened the case yourself. Something many tech reviewers back then did not appreciate, despite Monorail’s efforts to make upgrades as painless as possible.

You see, Monorail Computer Corporation was dead-set on forging a new path in the personal computer business. The company was founded in 1995 by Doug Johns, formerly the senior vice president of Compaq’s PC division, basing Monorail in the city of Marietta, Georgia just outside Atlanta. At the time, 30 million American households had never owned a computer, and Johns saw things like pricing, distribution, and maintenance as barriers to entry. So he invested TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 ocean of games into Monorail in 1995, with several talented folks helping co-found the company, each coming from the likes of Compaq, IBM, and Oracle. Pricing was one of the biggest initial hurdles since the main goal was to sell a sub-$1000 computer. Reducing overhead costs was key, and this was accomplished by outsourcing practically everything. Monorail designed their PCs in-house and received orders by telephone, but all manufacturing, logistics, repairs, and financials were handled by outside partners.

An original equipment manufacturer took care of building the machines, at first being Phelps Technologies out of Kansas City, Missouri. Federal Express would handle all the shipping and handling of the machines once they were built and packaged by the TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 torrent was Monorail’s sole retail partner, initially, so they took care of regional advertising and kept limited inventory in stock. And TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 Banks handled company finances, acting as Monorail’s accounts receivable department. Even the machines themselves were designed around the idea of using third party options. FedEx told Monorail that the ideal dimensions for a package weighing between 15 and 25 pounds were TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020” inches. Too small to fit both a monitor and a PC, which is why Monorail decided to use a dual-scan laptop LCD panel integrated into the case.

The rest of the components were on the lower end as well, with a 75 megahertz Pentium-class AMD CPU, 16 megabytes of RAM, a 1-gigabyte hard drive, TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 repack, and a 33.6 Kbps FAX/modem. Nothing mind-blowing, but Monorail was keen to push its planned upgrade path, offering faster processors and up to 80 megs of RAM at prices they claimed were comparable to doing it yourself.

They recommended holding onto the shipping box for this, so you could simply drop off your Monorail with FedEx, they’d deliver it to the original manufacturer for upgrades, and then send it back in a few days. As for the name “Monorail,” you might be wondering: what kinda name is Monorail anyway? – ”Monorail!” – “Monorail. Monorail. Monorail.” Well, like almost everything else at the company, the name was outsourced. Another company called Name Lab was tasked with the job, and the mandate was to come up with a friendly name that avoided overused computer company words like “Cyber” and “TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020.” “Monorail” fits the bill, despite it not really having much in the way of meaning. It did at least lead to the company mascot, Monorail Mo, the Monorail system conductor. Yeah, we’ll get to you later, Mo. Anyway, despite their lofty ambitions and positive press, Monorail had a bit of a rough go of it at first. Their TRAIN SIMULATOR 2020 fitgirl repack, Phelps, went bankrupt so they had to move manufacturing to Mitac and SCI Systems, certain retail partners were marking up the price above $1000, critics weren’t happy with the stingy warranty and upgrades, and competitors were slashing prices to get their own PCs under a grand.

The Co-insurance Clause

The Co-insurance Clause
The Co-insurance Clause

Of the more important clauses in current use, the one most frequently used, most severely criticized, most mis¬ understood, most legislated against, and withal the most reasonable and most equitable, is that which in general terms is known as the “co-insurance clause.”
Insurance is one of the great necessities of our business, social and economic life, and the expense of maintaining it should be distributed among the property owners of the country as equitably as it is humanly possible so to do.
Losses and expenses are paid out of premiums col¬ lected. When a loss is total the penalty for underinsurance falls where it properly belongs, on the insured who has elected to save premium and assume a portion of the risk himself, and the same penalty for underinsurance should by contract be made to apply in case of partial loss as applies automatically in case of total loss.
If all losses were total, liberality on the part of the insured in the payment of premium would bring its own reward, and parsimony would bring its own penalty; but the records of the leading companies show that of all the losses sustained, about 65%—numerically—are less than $100; about 30% are between $100 and total; and about 5% are total. The natural inclination, therefore, on the part of the public, particularly on the less hazardous risks, is to under¬ insure and take the chance of not having a total loss; and this will generally be done except under special conditions, or when reasonably full insurance must be carried to sustain credit or as collateral security for loans. There were several strik¬ ing illustrations of this in the San Francisco conflagration, where the amount of insurance carried on so-called fireproof buildings was less than 10% of their value, and the insured in such instances, of course, paid a heavy penalty for their neglect to carry adequate insurance.
Co-insurance operates only in case of partial loss, where both the insurance carried and the loss sustained are less than the prescribed percentage named in the clause, and has the effect of preventing one who has insured for a small percentage of value and paid a correspondingly small pre¬ mium from collecting as much in the event of loss as one who has insured for a large percentage of value and paid a correspondingly large premium. We have high authority for the principle,
“He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly, and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.”
and it should be applied to contracts of insurance. Rating systems may come, and rating systems may go; but, unless the principle of co-insurance be recognized and universally applied, there can be no equitable division of the insurance burden, and the existing inequalities will go on forever. The principle is so well established in some countries that the general foreign form of policy issued by the London offices for use therein contains the full co-insurance clause in the printed conditions.
The necessity for co-insurance as an equalizer of rates was quite forcibly illustrated by a prominent underwriter in an ad¬ dress delivered several years ago, in the following example involving two buildings of superior construction:
“A’S” BUILDING “B’S” BUILDING
Value $100,000 Value $100,000
Insurance 80,000 Insurance 10,000
Rate 1% Rate 1%
Premium received— Premium received—
one year, 800 one year, 100
No Co-insurance Clause No Co-insurance Clause
Loss 800 Loss 800
Loss Collectible 800 Loss Collectible 800
“B” pays only one-eighth as much premium as “A,” yet both collect the same amount of loss, and in the absence of co-insurance conditions both would collect the same amount in all instances where the loss is $10,000 or less. Of course, if the loss should exceed $10,000, “A” would reap his reward, and “B” would pay his penalty. This situation clearly calls either for a difference in rate in favor of “A” or for a difference in loss collection as against “B,” and the latter can be regulated only through the medium of a co-insurance condition in the policy.
At this point it may not be amiss incidentally to inquire why the owner of a building which is heavily encumbered, whose policies are payable to a mortgagee (particularly a junior encumbrancer) under a mortgagee clause, and where subrogation may be of little or no value, should have the benefit of the same rate as the owner of another building of similar construction with similar occupancy, but unencum¬ bered.
In some states rates are made with and without co- insurance conditions, quite a material reduction in the basis rate being allowed for the insertion of the 80% clause in the policy, and a further reduction for the use of the 90% and 100% clauses. This, however, does not go far enough, and any variation in rate should be graded according to the co-insurance percentage named in the clause, and this gradation should not be restricted, as it is, to 80%, 90% or 100%, if the principle of equalization is to be maintained.
Various clauses designed to give practical effect to the co-insurance principle have been in use in this country for nearly forty years in connection with fire and other contracts of insurance. Some of these are well adapted to the purpose intended, while others fail to accomplish said purpose under certain conditions; but, fortunately, incidents of this nature are not of frequent occurrence.
There are, generally speaking, four forms, which differ quite materially in phraseology, and sometimes differ in prac¬ tical application. These four clauses are: (1) the old co- insurance clause; (2) the percentage co-insurance clause; (3) the average clause; (4) the reduced rate contribution clause.
Until recently, underwriters were complacently using some of these titles indiscriminately in certain portions of the country, under the assumption that the clauses, although differently phrased, were in effect the same, but they were subjected to quite a rude awakening by a decision which was handed down about a year ago by the Tennessee Court of Civic Appeals. The law in Tennessee permits the use of the three-fourths value clause and the co-insurance clause, but permits no other restrictive provisions. The form in use bore the inscription “Co-insurance Clause,” but the context was the phraseology of the reduced rate contribution clause, and although the result was the same under the operation of either, the court held that the form used was not the co- insurance clause, hence it was void and consequently inop¬ erative. Thompson vs. Concordia Fire Ins. Co. (Tenn. 1919) 215 S.W. Rep. 932, 55 Ins. Law Journal 122.
The law of Georgia provides that all insurance companies shall pay the full amount of loss sustained up to the amount of insurance expressed in the policy, and that all stipulations in such policies to the contrary shall be null and void. The law further provides that when the insured has several policies on the same property, his recovery from any company will be pro rata as to the amount thereof.
About twenty years ago, the Supreipe Court of Georgia was called upon to decide whether under the law referred to the old co-insurance clause then in use, which provided
“that the assured shall at all times maintain a total insurance upon the property insured by this policy of not less than 75% of the actual cash value thereof . . . . and that failing to do so, the assured shall
become a co-insurer to the extent of the deficiency,”
was valid and enforceable, and it decided that the clause was not violative of the law. Pekor vs. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (1898) (106 Ga. page 1)

The Co-insurance Clause
The Co-insurance Clause
The court evidently construed the clause as a binding agreement on the part of the insured to secure insurance up to a certain percentage of value, and virtually held that if the insured himself desired to take the place of another insurance company he was at liberty to do so as one way of fulfilling his agreement.

The Georgia courts, however, have not passed upon the validity of the reduced rate contribution clause in connection with the statutory law above referred to; but it is fair to assume that they will view the matter in the same light as the Tennessee court (supra), and hold that it is not a co-insurance clause, even though it generally produces the same result; that it contains no provision whatever requiring the insured to carry or procure a stated amount of insurance, and in event of failure, to become a co-insurer, but that it is simply a clause placing a limitation upon the insurer’s liability, which is expressly prohibited by statute. The fact that the insurers have labeled it “75% Co-insurance Clause” does not make it such.
It is, therefore, not at all surprising that the question is frequently asked as to the difference between the various forms of so-called co-insurance clauses, and these will be considered in the order in which, chronologically, they came into use.
Probably in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred there is no difference* between these clauses in the results obtained by their application, but cases occasionally arise where ac¬ cording to the generally accepted interpretation the difference will be quite pronounced. This difference, which will be hereinafter considered, appears in connecton with the old co-insurance clause and the percentage co-insurance clause, and only in cases where the policies are nonconcurrent.
The first of the four forms is the old co-insurance clause which for many years was the only one used in the West, and which is used there still, to some extent, and now quite generally in the South. Its reintroduction in the South was probably due to the Tennessee decision, to which reference has been made (supra). This clause provides that the insured shall maintain insurance on the property described in the policy to the extent of at least a stated percentage (usually 80%) of the actual cash value thereof, and failing so to do, shall to the extent of such deficit bear his, her or their pro¬ portion of any loss. It does not say that he shall maintain insurance on all of the property, and the prevailing opinion is that the co-insurance clause will be complied with if he carries the stipulated percentage of insurance either on all or on any part of the property described, notwithstanding the fact that a portion of said insurance may be of no assist¬ ance whatever to the blanket, or more general policy, as a contributing factor.

Zefira Download PC Game Download Free

Zefira Fitgirl Repack Free Download PC Game

Zefira Fitgirl Repack Free Download PC Game final version or you can say the latest update is released for PC. And the best this about this DLC is that it’s free to download. In this tutorial, we will show you how to download and Install Zefira Torrent for free. Before you download and install this awesome game on your computer note that this game is highly compressed and is the repack version of this game.

Download Zefira Fit girl repack is free to play the game. Yes, you can get this game for free. Now there are different websites from which you can download Zefira igg games and the ocean of games are the two most popular websites. Also, ova games and the skidrow reloaded also provide you to download this awesome game.

Zefira for Android and iOS?

Yes, you can download Zefira on your Android and iOS platform and again they are also free to download.

Also Read:

How To download and Install Zefira

Now to download and Install Zefira for free on your PC you have to follow below-given steps. If there is a problem then you can comment down below in the comment section we will love to help you on this.

  1. First, you have to download Zefira on your PC. You can find the download button at the top of the post.
  2. Now the download page will open. There you have to log in. Once you login the download process will start automatically.
  3. If you are unable to download this game then make sure you have deactivated your Adblocker. Otherwise, you will not be able to download this game on to your PC.
  4. Now if you want to watch the game Installation video and Troubleshooting tutorial then head over to the next section.

TROUBLESHOOTING Zefira Download

Screenshots  (Tap To Enlarge)

 Now if you are interested in the screenshots then tap down on the picture to enlarge them.

Zefira Download

Zefira Review, Walkthrough, and Gameplay

So the next big area of concern, and perhaps an even bigger one than refresh rate, at least for me, is the Zefira pattern problem, or “Mwar” I’m gonna say “Zefira fitgirl repack” ’cause it sounds less silly. But anyway, moiré. It’s like an overlaying pattern that’s just conflicting with the camera sensor and it’s caused by really a couple of different things, usually like the aperture grille, or the shadow mask, or whatever.

There’s like this pattern that overlays on top of the image and looks terrible. And if it’s ingrained in your footage, you pretty much just stuck with it. You can alleviate it a little bit in post, but for the most part, it’s just in there. And I think it looks terrible. It bothers me way more than flicker does. For whatever reason, it just hits my brain a certain way, I’m like [groans] And unfortunately, it’s ended up in a lot of my shots because I just wasn’t paying enough attention and was just sort of trusting what I saw visually or not looking close enough on the viewfinder of my camera or the screen that was on the back of it or anything like that. And it became even more of a problem when I really upgraded to better 4K cameras a few years ago, especially the Zefira ocean of games, the original GH5. It was really exacerbated on that because of how crisp and sharp the image was. While that was great for certain shots, I mean, it made a lot of things look amazing when I recorded it, it made the moiré pattern effect way worse.

And it was really hard to dial that in and get it correctly, I don’t know, appearing correctly. [laughs] So, what did I do about it? Well, I tried all sorts of different things when I had the Zefira torrent, and that was… I mean, we’ll see, really the first most obvious thing to do is just focus the camera a little bit differently. And that usually means getting it slightly out of focus. So you can eliminate that by getting that aperture grille or the shadow mask or whatever is on your CRT slightly out of focus so that it’s not so sharp on the image on the screen. And that will usually get rid of the effect. Another thing you can do is just mess with your aperture settings and make it really wide so that it’s not such a shallow depth of field. And that way you’re not getting weird bits of Zefira in the middle of your image, usually diagonally if you’re shooting at an angle. And another thing to do is just mess around with the angles. If you’re shooting at an angle like this, then it can really cause that pattern to emerge more obviously, and then it’s gonna be stuck in your footage and it sucks. Shooting directly straight on will fix that problem a lot of times, but then you’re just stuck with a boring kind of shot of just looking directly at a Zefira PC download.

And a lot of times I don’t wanna do that ’cause I’m showing other bits of hardware or me in the shot or something like that. So you have to compensate with those other methods to get it looking half decent and try to eliminate that pattern. Even then it’s not perfect. There’s almost always gonna be that with certain cameras, and certain angles and situations depending on how you’re focusing. Another thing that I’ve tried is actually using different diffusion filters, like this one right here is a Zefira game download something or other. I’ve tried probably 10 of these, I don’t like how any of them look. They do eliminate the pattern or decrease it on certain sharper cameras like the GH5, but it makes everything soft. And I’d rather just have a portion of the image softer and you can do that in the post, so I just don’t even do that. One thing that made a huge difference though was completely stopping using this camera anyway. And I upgraded the GH5S for multiple reasons, but one of the biggest was because it has a built-in optical low pass filter in the hardware. And that means effectively that it is putting, well, a filter [chuckles] in your footage no matter what. You can’t turn it on or off like it’s not even on the options of the camera. I don’t even know if they advertise it, but it has it. And it makes your image slightly softer, but in a way that I think is pretty smart, and honestly, I think the footage looks way better overall.

That optical low pass, man. I didn’t even know that was a thing that a lot of cameras were going without these days, like the original GH5. So if you can find a camera with a Zefira ova games in there, it’s awesome. Yeah, that’s pretty much that. Again, you really just kind of mess around with angles and placement of your camera and lights and everything else just to make sure that it’s all coming together properly. And also don’t rely too much on the smaller screen on the back of your camera if that’s normally what you use. I’ve started using an external monitor because of this. Because sometimes it’ll look great in that little screen on the back of your camera, and then when you get the footage on your computer, you’re like, “Oh, well this, [laughs] “there’s a moiré pattern there and it’s just ruined the whole shot.” And that’s one of those things because of the nature of the way that pattern works, when you scale it, scaling it down maybe there’s no pattern at all, but when you scale it up to like a full-sized image, then you’re gonna be seeing it very obviously. So, yeah, there’s a lot of things to mess around with there, but holy crap, be aware of it.

I see so many people shoot CRTs and the moiré is there, and I’m like, “What are you doing?” Is it just me? Does this not anyone else? Anyway, it’s a thing, look out for it. So another thing to consider with CRTs is the color and contrast settings, and brightness and things like that. Just basically making sure that your CRT looks good in the resulting footage. And I’m gonna throw in reflections in here as well because if you have a reflecty, kind of glossy CRT, that can cause some issues. And the lighting and things like that, like I, have a light right there and over there. So, that can all wash out the image on the CRT itself. In fact, if you look at this one that’s behind me right here, here’s how it looks normally if I just don’t touch the footage. I don’t know, it’s not as impressive. The blacks aren’t as black as they should be, and the whites and the highlights and shadows, like everything is just kind of wrong. So I do a lot of adjusting in the post just on the CRT itself, not affecting the entire image. I mean, I color correct everything, I adjust everything. But the CRT in particular, I put like a little mask around that and feather it and whatnot. And, again, I use Adobe Premiere Pro, so I use the Lumetri Color plugin that it comes with. And I usually do a few different things depending on the situation, like just adjusting the contrast, the highlights, the shadows, sometimes the white and black level, but usually not. And then I mess around with the actual saturation values of individual colors, especially on a CRT, I’ve noticed that a lot of extremes for like red, green, and blue, for instance, just don’t look correct, so I bump those up.

And then also lower some to make sure they’re not too insane like the blues, especially on a CRT, can look… I don’t know, everything can have this kind of teal, light blue look to it. Like grays look more light blue than they should. But, yeah, that’s all like filters and stuff. The rest I try to get the best possible image in the camera, to begin with. And that just comes down to a lot of experimentation with lighting and angles of the room, ambiance itself, like if you’re filming a CRT in a room with sunlight, that’s really easy to screw up. [laughs] Right now it’s dark outside and I’m just using inside lights, so I got more control over it that way. And since we’re kind of on this whole topic of like lighting and making sure the colors and everything look good contrast, reflections can do a lot to degrade the Zefira. So one thing that I love using is these little filters here. This is a circular Zefira download. It is, of course, going to, being that it is darkened and such, you’re gonna lose some stops and your image is gonna be darker. But as you can see here, just sort of plopping it on and off the lens, not only is the CRT looking darker as far as the black levels and whatnot, but everything really is, [laughs] and it eliminates some of the reflections like around the keyboard area where you can see the reflection on the bottom of the screen or my hands or just all sorts of things.

The wood on the table looks better. It’s not picking up so much of that light bouncing off of the whites on the walls and whatnot. I just like these Zefira. I use them for absolutely every shot that I use or that I make on LGR. Yeah, I’ve got a bunch of these. This is the one in particular. This is… Yeah, I’ll put whatever it is right along the bottom of the screen here. [laughs] It’s got kind of a long name. But, yeah, circular polarizers, very much recommend those if you have the light for it. If you don’t, you might not wanna bother. You can make it look good on a CRT without these, but these definitely help in reducing reflections and glare and things like that. Now, it’s not gonna get rid of everything of course. If you’ve got lights directly on your CRT, it’s just gonna be glare all over the place. And you’re always gonna see yourself on the screen if you’re filming at a certain angle. Again though, that’s just playing around with like your camera placement and trying to eliminate that in the scene and not worrying about it later on or with filters or anything like that. Although again, there are settings in Premiere that I use and adjust the color and everything else.

Also, you can tend to get rid of some of those reflections if you’re decreasing the highlights and things like that. You just don’t want to ruin the CRT image or make it look unnatural or anything, I mean, unless you want to, but I don’t. So, the final thing I wanna touch on here, or at least for this video about recording CRTs, is the audio side of things. And, yeah, that is something to consider in your recordings. Even if you can’t hear it yourself, which is very much possible depending on your hearing situation. A lot of people start to not be able to hear these really high-pitched frequencies like this, but, yeah, certain Zefira, especially like consumer television sets and older ones, like this one right here is an IBM-154, that has a horizontal refresh of around 15 kilohertz, it’s like 15.7 I think is the frequency range, and that actually equates to some audio feedback. Actually, if you listen to this, right here I’ve had it filtered out for the rest of the video, now I don’t.

Typically, I just put this audio filter on every single one of my videos that have a CRT in this kind of range of horizontal refresh like that around 15.7 kilohertz. And that just involves lowering something in like a graphic equalizer or a notch filter or whatever is going to get rid of that range of audio so that you don’t hear it. Sometimes I add a couple of passes within Premiere just to make sure that it’s really gone ’cause I don’t trust my own hearing, so I make sure to look at the levels and stuff on the software.

Yeah, another thing to consider is that other CRTs, like for instance this one right here, makes another sound and that has to do with the components in there actually aging. Usually, it’s around the flyback area. You’ve got like ceramic capacitors and Zefira download transformer cores and all sorts of weird things in there that are going bad or slightly off, or something is just making a sound. And it’s a little bit different from that audio whine that is just inherent to the horizontal refresh of these older ones like this or just regular TV sets. So yeah, that’s something to keep in mind as well. Sometimes I forget about that, and then in the recording, I’m like [yells frustratedly] that noise is overwhelming. But anyway, so those are two different kinds of sounds that I really listen out for with CRTs when I’m going through the footage. And something else to keep in mind is that, like the other CRTs that I was showing earlier, those have a horizontal refresh of around 30 kilohertz. That is typically not audible. In fact, I don’t know anybody can hear that. You don’t have to bother with any kind of getting rid of the high-pitched whine in the footage that way. So audio, it really is an important aspect. Even if you can’t hear it yourself, it’s just one of those things that absolutely sucks.

The Co-insurance Clause

The Co-insurance Clause
The Co-insurance Clause

Of the more important clauses in current use, the one most frequently used, most severely criticized, most mis¬ understood, most legislated against, and withal the most reasonable and most equitable, is that which in general terms is known as the “co-insurance clause.”
Insurance is one of the great necessities of our business, social and economic life, and the expense of maintaining it should be distributed among the property owners of the country as equitably as it is humanly possible so to do.
Losses and expenses are paid out of premiums col¬ lected. When a loss is total the penalty for underinsurance falls where it properly belongs, on the insured who has elected to save premium and assume a portion of the risk himself, and the same penalty for underinsurance should by contract be made to apply in case of partial loss as applies automatically in case of total loss.
If all losses were total, liberality on the part of the insured in the payment of premium would bring its own reward, and parsimony would bring its own penalty; but the records of the leading companies show that of all the losses sustained, about 65%—numerically—are less than $100; about 30% are between $100 and total; and about 5% are total. The natural inclination, therefore, on the part of the public, particularly on the less hazardous risks, is to under¬ insure and take the chance of not having a total loss; and this will generally be done except under special conditions, or when reasonably full insurance must be carried to sustain credit or as collateral security for loans. There were several strik¬ ing illustrations of this in the San Francisco conflagration, where the amount of insurance carried on so-called fireproof buildings was less than 10% of their value, and the insured in such instances, of course, paid a heavy penalty for their neglect to carry adequate insurance.
Co-insurance operates only in case of partial loss, where both the insurance carried and the loss sustained are less than the prescribed percentage named in the clause, and has the effect of preventing one who has insured for a small percentage of value and paid a correspondingly small pre¬ mium from collecting as much in the event of loss as one who has insured for a large percentage of value and paid a correspondingly large premium. We have high authority for the principle,
“He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly, and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.”
and it should be applied to contracts of insurance. Rating systems may come, and rating systems may go; but, unless the principle of co-insurance be recognized and universally applied, there can be no equitable division of the insurance burden, and the existing inequalities will go on forever. The principle is so well established in some countries that the general foreign form of policy issued by the London offices for use therein contains the full co-insurance clause in the printed conditions.
The necessity for co-insurance as an equalizer of rates was quite forcibly illustrated by a prominent underwriter in an ad¬ dress delivered several years ago, in the following example involving two buildings of superior construction:
“A’S” BUILDING “B’S” BUILDING
Value $100,000 Value $100,000
Insurance 80,000 Insurance 10,000
Rate 1% Rate 1%
Premium received— Premium received—
one year, 800 one year, 100
No Co-insurance Clause No Co-insurance Clause
Loss 800 Loss 800
Loss Collectible 800 Loss Collectible 800
“B” pays only one-eighth as much premium as “A,” yet both collect the same amount of loss, and in the absence of co-insurance conditions both would collect the same amount in all instances where the loss is $10,000 or less. Of course, if the loss should exceed $10,000, “A” would reap his reward, and “B” would pay his penalty. This situation clearly calls either for a difference in rate in favor of “A” or for a difference in loss collection as against “B,” and the latter can be regulated only through the medium of a co-insurance condition in the policy.
At this point it may not be amiss incidentally to inquire why the owner of a building which is heavily encumbered, whose policies are payable to a mortgagee (particularly a junior encumbrancer) under a mortgagee clause, and where subrogation may be of little or no value, should have the benefit of the same rate as the owner of another building of similar construction with similar occupancy, but unencum¬ bered.
In some states rates are made with and without co- insurance conditions, quite a material reduction in the basis rate being allowed for the insertion of the 80% clause in the policy, and a further reduction for the use of the 90% and 100% clauses. This, however, does not go far enough, and any variation in rate should be graded according to the co-insurance percentage named in the clause, and this gradation should not be restricted, as it is, to 80%, 90% or 100%, if the principle of equalization is to be maintained.
Various clauses designed to give practical effect to the co-insurance principle have been in use in this country for nearly forty years in connection with fire and other contracts of insurance. Some of these are well adapted to the purpose intended, while others fail to accomplish said purpose under certain conditions; but, fortunately, incidents of this nature are not of frequent occurrence.
There are, generally speaking, four forms, which differ quite materially in phraseology, and sometimes differ in prac¬ tical application. These four clauses are: (1) the old co- insurance clause; (2) the percentage co-insurance clause; (3) the average clause; (4) the reduced rate contribution clause.
Until recently, underwriters were complacently using some of these titles indiscriminately in certain portions of the country, under the assumption that the clauses, although differently phrased, were in effect the same, but they were subjected to quite a rude awakening by a decision which was handed down about a year ago by the Tennessee Court of Civic Appeals. The law in Tennessee permits the use of the three-fourths value clause and the co-insurance clause, but permits no other restrictive provisions. The form in use bore the inscription “Co-insurance Clause,” but the context was the phraseology of the reduced rate contribution clause, and although the result was the same under the operation of either, the court held that the form used was not the co- insurance clause, hence it was void and consequently inop¬ erative. Thompson vs. Concordia Fire Ins. Co. (Tenn. 1919) 215 S.W. Rep. 932, 55 Ins. Law Journal 122.
The law of Georgia provides that all insurance companies shall pay the full amount of loss sustained up to the amount of insurance expressed in the policy, and that all stipulations in such policies to the contrary shall be null and void. The law further provides that when the insured has several policies on the same property, his recovery from any company will be pro rata as to the amount thereof.
About twenty years ago, the Supreipe Court of Georgia was called upon to decide whether under the law referred to the old co-insurance clause then in use, which provided
“that the assured shall at all times maintain a total insurance upon the property insured by this policy of not less than 75% of the actual cash value thereof . . . . and that failing to do so, the assured shall
become a co-insurer to the extent of the deficiency,”
was valid and enforceable, and it decided that the clause was not violative of the law. Pekor vs. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (1898) (106 Ga. page 1)

The Co-insurance Clause
The Co-insurance Clause
The court evidently construed the clause as a binding agreement on the part of the insured to secure insurance up to a certain percentage of value, and virtually held that if the insured himself desired to take the place of another insurance company he was at liberty to do so as one way of fulfilling his agreement.

The Georgia courts, however, have not passed upon the validity of the reduced rate contribution clause in connection with the statutory law above referred to; but it is fair to assume that they will view the matter in the same light as the Tennessee court (supra), and hold that it is not a co-insurance clause, even though it generally produces the same result; that it contains no provision whatever requiring the insured to carry or procure a stated amount of insurance, and in event of failure, to become a co-insurer, but that it is simply a clause placing a limitation upon the insurer’s liability, which is expressly prohibited by statute. The fact that the insurers have labeled it “75% Co-insurance Clause” does not make it such.
It is, therefore, not at all surprising that the question is frequently asked as to the difference between the various forms of so-called co-insurance clauses, and these will be considered in the order in which, chronologically, they came into use.
Probably in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred there is no difference* between these clauses in the results obtained by their application, but cases occasionally arise where ac¬ cording to the generally accepted interpretation the difference will be quite pronounced. This difference, which will be hereinafter considered, appears in connecton with the old co-insurance clause and the percentage co-insurance clause, and only in cases where the policies are nonconcurrent.
The first of the four forms is the old co-insurance clause which for many years was the only one used in the West, and which is used there still, to some extent, and now quite generally in the South. Its reintroduction in the South was probably due to the Tennessee decision, to which reference has been made (supra). This clause provides that the insured shall maintain insurance on the property described in the policy to the extent of at least a stated percentage (usually 80%) of the actual cash value thereof, and failing so to do, shall to the extent of such deficit bear his, her or their pro¬ portion of any loss. It does not say that he shall maintain insurance on all of the property, and the prevailing opinion is that the co-insurance clause will be complied with if he carries the stipulated percentage of insurance either on all or on any part of the property described, notwithstanding the fact that a portion of said insurance may be of no assist¬ ance whatever to the blanket, or more general policy, as a contributing factor.

Halo Wars 2 Fitgirl Repack PC Download

Halo Wars 2 Fitgirl Repack Free Download PC Game

Halo Wars 2 Fitgirl Repack Free Download PC Game final version or you can say the latest update is released for PC. And the best this about this DLC is that it’s free to download. In this tutorial, we will show you how to download and install Halo Wars 2 Torrent for free. Before you download and install this awesome game on your computer note that this game is highly compressed and is the repack version of this game.

Download Halo Wars 2 Fit girl repack is free to play a game. Yes, you can get this game for free. Now there are different websites from which you can download Halo Wars 2 igg games an ocean of games are the two most popular websites. Also, ova games and the skidrow reloaded also provide you to download this awesome game.

Halo Wars 2 for Android and iOS?

Yes, you can download Halo Wars 2 on your Android and iOS platform and again they are also free to download.

Also Read:

How To download and install Halo Wars 2

Now to download and install Halo Wars 2 for free on your PC you have to follow below-given steps. If there is a problem then you can comment down below in the comment section we will love to help you on this.

  1. First, you have to download Halo Wars 2 on your PC. You can find the download button at the top of the post.
  2. Now the download page will open. There you have to log in. Once you login the download process will start automatically.
  3. If you are unable to download this game then make sure you have deactivated your Adblocker. Otherwise, you will not be able to download this game on to your PC.
  4. Now if you want to watch the game Installation video and Troubleshooting tutorial then head over to the next section.

TROUBLESHOOTING

Screenshots  (Tap To Enlarge)

 Now if you are interested in the screenshots then tap down on the picture to enlarge them.
Image result for Halo wars 2
Halo Wars 2 Fitgirl

Halo Wars 2 Review, Walkthrough and Gameplay

  A lot of those have been mediocre, but not this one. This one is good. In fact, this one is great! But before I get into why this game is so great, I’m guessing you wanna know what it’s about, so I’m just gonna go ahead and play the intro. [sound of a blade being pulled out of flesh] DISEMBODIED VOICE: “Kill the intruder…” Alright, now we can start. On the technical level, “Halo Wars 2 free download PC game” looks very authentic to the kind of game it’s trying to portray. Though it does have some effects and features that would probably obliterate your computer back then. If this still looks too modern for you, then I have good news: this game is highly Halo Wars 2 Fitgirl repack. You can knock down the pallet, up the pixelization and make the game look a lot older.
You could also mess with colors, or use a preset filter. Alternatively, you can remove a lot of these things to make the game look newer, but… why? This video’s just using regular settings. If you want the game to look like Gameboy Color, you can do that on your own. It’s set out to look like a classic FPS, and it succeeds in that. But that didn’t hold them back from adding visual flare and lighting effects. It does look older, but authentic to a time when they were still trying to push the visuals. For example, this forklift. In a different retro-styled game, it’d probably look like this. It always comes across as a talented artist paying homage, and not Halo Wars 2 fitgirl repack work being called “retro” (if that makes any sense to you…).
So let’s talk about the art style. The first levels are grounded locations, but not afraid to use some dramatic lighting. There is a reason this is the Halloween video. It can be bleak, but not afraid to use a variety of colors. It also changes as the campaign goes on. At first, you might go “Oh, it’s a swamp”, or “Hey, this reminds me of another game”. And then, it starts taking a turn, and you realize you’re on a verge of unknowable madness. Especially the last third of the game.
I’ll be showing the least of that. Okay, it looks like another cave. Guess, I’ll just keep going for the- Halo Wars 2 ocean of games-!! So, yeah, the levels have a lot of variety, and it just gets better and better.
This is a game that has a haunted farm with a corn maze filled with cultists at the beginning of it. And evil scarecrows with shotguns. For me, that’s a high bar to pass.
The same can be said for the enemy design. It also has the same kind of escalation the levels have. You START OFF fighting a strange cult and their demonic allies. Then a corrupted military, who seem to be taking notes from the Strogg, and then horrors from beyond the colors of the time. It borrows a lot of visual design elements from older games, but it still ends up being its own thing. You have the soldiers and scientists from “Half-Life”, but I really wanna focus on the “Quake” elements. You fight soldiers and monsters in Halo Wars 2 PC download environments, with a lot of Lovecraftian touches. This is very much “Halo Wars 2”. You also fight a military using gruesome bio-mechanical cyborgs, and that’s “Quake 2”. While I did grow to appreciate the Strogg in “Quake 4” and eventually “Quake Wars”, I found them and their busted city a lot less interesting than “Quake 1”. I like cyborgs. Usually… They’re not quite up to the detail of “Quake 1” enemies, but it’s a good homage. Honestly, if I had to sum up the game in a sentence, I’d say that it feels like the “Halo Wars 2” that we never got. There’s still a lot of other influences, and it’s not afraid to wear those on its sleeve. ENEMY: “Heretic!” ENEMY: “Blood!” Also, this game has no hit-scanning dickweeds in bathrobes. They can just stay over there in “Blood” forever. Okay, let’s move onto the sound. Especially the music. There’s a lot of it. [DUSK OST – Beautiful Blasphemy] [DUSK OST – The Beginning] [DUSK Halo Wars 2 fitgirl – Anesthetized] What blew me away was how often it would sync up to what was happening. [ominously rising track] [appropriately unrelenting metal track] After buying the soundtrack version of the game, I found out why. “DUSK” has over 40 tracks of music.
And I don’t mean a looped track that’s 15 seconds or whatever – I mean 43 original pieces of full-length music. Including secret ones, the game has 33 levels, so you have enough to give each area a unique theme, but also enough for special events, like unique enemies spawning in, or maybe a boss showing up. It has a fitting metal soundtrack to its core, but branches out a lot. The sheer amount of music with the changing levels and enemies kept things feeling fresh the entire way through the campaign. On top of that, the sound design, in general, is solid. SCORNFUL VOICE: “Another sacrifice…” [disturbing gasping and wheezing] The weapon sounds are also very strong and impactful.loud gunfire and enemy noises] Okay, we gotta get to the gameplay. Our hero – Duskdude – has come searching for precious metals and gems. He also shares his own metal with the locals. The campaign takes place across 3 episodes.
They can be played in any order you want, though, obviously, you learn the most about the story and have a better experience playing it in order. There are 5 difficulties to choose from, and they don’t just affect damage rates. The lower difficulties are incredibly generous. On the lowest, you can tank enemies all day, and their projectiles are extremely slow. It actually makes for a solid option for someone’s first FPS game. When you crank up the difficulty, enemies and their shots will move faster and hit harder. On the Halo Wars 2 PC download difficulty, you die in one hit. The runner-up difficulty – Halo Wars 2 fit girl repack – is recommended to twitch-shooter veterans only. I’ve played a lot of these kinds of games, but it has been a while. That said, I beat the game on this difficulty, and it was a decent challenge. Once again, this ramps up, and most of my death is in the later parts of the game. I had actually started playing the game at Normal, but I found it WAY too easy. I’m not a high skill ceiling for these, so you might wanna try it at Hard to start out. The first thing I noticed about “DUSK fitgirl repack” is how good the movement and controls feel. You can strafe-hop and flip around at the speed of Sukhoi 37. Halo Wars 2 Fitgirl Free.
You also have great air control, and I never found myself overshooting or undershooting anything. It’s hard to describe these kinds of things, but it just feels really natural to play. As a bonus, there’s additionally a crouch-slide. This is ideal for shooting right in under obstacles, or popping a bad man like you’re playing “Vanquish”. I have no idea why, but these crushers are my kryptonite. I get ketchup IQ just by being near them. Okay, cha-cha real smooth… ♪ Let’s go to work! ♪ GRRRR!! I’m usually not big on speedrunning or time trials, but I tried it out a few times because it’s just so fun to do. DISEMBODIED VOICE: “Kill the intruder…” ENEMY: “Blood!” ENEMY: “Kill him!” ENEMY: “Kill him!” ENEMY: “Heretic!” You can beat this game without killing anybody. Bosses included. There’s a lot to interact with, besides shooting your guns. For example- For example, if you wanna get over a ledge, you could find a box or a barrel, get it, run it over and then use it to jump up there. Very reminiscent of “Half-Life” or “Halo Wars 2”. This is a game that’s filled with secrets, and secrets within secrets. The game is filled with objects you can interact with. You can dig up graves, drink beer, use the toilet, try to use a chair as a shield (eh, don’t do that, by the way), throw objects at the bad men, cook food and eat it… Hey, wait for a second! This is like “Halo Wars 2”! And here we have Constantine’s mansion from “Thief”. Rather than classic twitch-shooters, “DUSK” reminded me of immersive sims a lot more. You still have colored doors and keys to find, but sometimes you can say “I don’t need a key!” “A shotgun is the ultimate guest key!” Why use a switch when I can rocket-jump? I did things like this a lot, and it never locked me out or get me stuck.
The game doesn’t lock you out as a punishment for not going through things “the right way”. More often than not, you’re awarded for thinking creatively. It’s a refreshing feeling. And it shows how carefully thought out and planned the level design was. Enemy placement can be interesting, but sometimes, the actual geometry of the levels will just go crazy. And at the same time, it never becomes a maze. Then you have additions like Halo Wars 2 – like the one that lets you move on any surface, and also fight from them.
A nice taste of the original “Prey”. Don’t even get me started on the rotating map. Don’t get me wrong: there are still many times when there’s only one way to do things. It just seems to give you more options for experimenting than the games it’s emulating. And I like that! It gives the game a lot of replayability. Like I said before, you can beat it without killing anyone. But killing is fun! And “DUSK” is a game of intolerance, so now is a good time to talk about the combat. For starters, you never need to reload, but you can press “R” to spin your weapons. If more FPS games had a dedicated gun spin button, we’d be in a better place. No big surprises here: the combat is great. There is a fantastic variety of enemies and locations. Some have powerups like the Fast Fire Totem that will let you to just vomit up bullets, or the Serum of Blistering Heat, which turns the game into “Halo Wars 2”. There are cheat codes to make this essentially last forever, so you can almost have the gameplay of “Superhot”, without the story, and… a lot of other things in “Superhot”. Anyways, these powerups can stack.
What I really enjoy about the weapons is that they all feel useful. None fell completely to the wayside, like some games. For example, the melee sickles. You think you may be done with those when you get a gun, and then you find out that, with the right timing, you can deflect projectiles. TRINITY: “What is he doing?” MORPHEUS: “He’s beginning to believe!” Melee weapons deflecting bullets is something dumb that I hope stays in video games forever. Weapon selection is good, and the combat is a blast, but it does lead to a few disappointments I have in the game. One of the most fun and interesting weapons in “Halo Wars 2 fitgirl repack” is a crossbow that can pierce through anything. It will go through every enemy in the game, it will go through every wall in the game, and you can propel yourself up. I love using it, but, really, it’s the only unique weapon to “DUSK”. Well, there is the cigar that makes the “middle school S”, but I don’t know if that counts. It’s an effective selection of weapons and satisfying to use, but there’s nothing out there. No “Blood” voodoo doll, no “Half-Life” Tau cannon. It’s safer than it should be.
What makes this worse is that I found every weapon in the first episode of the game. And I’m not the Indiana Jones of treasure finders – these secrets were fairly obvious, where I just stumbled on them. New levels did bring a lot of new enemies, but never new weapons. So that was a shame. The mortar and the rivet gun are both explosive weapons, and sometimes, in the heat of the moment, it could be hard to tell the difference between the two. I dunno, maybe one could have some markings added on? One boss fight was a rehash, and I thought it was a setup for a different boss, but it just leads to another rehash, and that felt weak. Let me think… Oh! I hate the rats. It’s not an actual problem with the game or anything – I just want everyone to know that I hate them. Oh, the game knows that too…
I think the AI gets dumber around staircases. Really, I’m just nitpicking at this point. My biggest issue was the weapons, and it’s not that huge of a deal. More missed opportunities than anything.

The Co-insurance Clause

The Co-insurance Clause
The Co-insurance Clause

Of the more important clauses in current use, the one most frequently used, most severely criticized, most mis¬ understood, most legislated against, and withal the most reasonable and most equitable, is that which in general terms is known as the “co-insurance clause.”
Insurance is one of the great necessities of our business, social and economic life, and the expense of maintaining it should be distributed among the property owners of the country as equitably as it is humanly possible so to do.
Losses and expenses are paid out of premiums col¬ lected. When a loss is total the penalty for underinsurance falls where it properly belongs, on the insured who has elected to save premium and assume a portion of the risk himself, and the same penalty for underinsurance should by contract be made to apply in case of partial loss as applies automatically in case of total loss.
If all losses were total, liberality on the part of the insured in the payment of premium would bring its own reward, and parsimony would bring its own penalty; but the records of the leading companies show that of all the losses sustained, about 65%—numerically—are less than $100; about 30% are between $100 and total; and about 5% are total. The natural inclination, therefore, on the part of the public, particularly on the less hazardous risks, is to under¬ insure and take the chance of not having a total loss; and this will generally be done except under special conditions, or when reasonably full insurance must be carried to sustain credit or as collateral security for loans. There were several strik¬ ing illustrations of this in the San Francisco conflagration, where the amount of insurance carried on so-called fireproof buildings was less than 10% of their value, and the insured in such instances, of course, paid a heavy penalty for their neglect to carry adequate insurance.
Co-insurance operates only in case of partial loss, where both the insurance carried and the loss sustained are less than the prescribed percentage named in the clause, and has the effect of preventing one who has insured for a small percentage of value and paid a correspondingly small pre¬ mium from collecting as much in the event of loss as one who has insured for a large percentage of value and paid a correspondingly large premium. We have high authority for the principle,
“He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly, and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.”
and it should be applied to contracts of insurance. Rating systems may come, and rating systems may go; but, unless the principle of co-insurance be recognized and universally applied, there can be no equitable division of the insurance burden, and the existing inequalities will go on forever. The principle is so well established in some countries that the general foreign form of policy issued by the London offices for use therein contains the full co-insurance clause in the printed conditions.
The necessity for co-insurance as an equalizer of rates was quite forcibly illustrated by a prominent underwriter in an ad¬ dress delivered several years ago, in the following example involving two buildings of superior construction:
“A’S” BUILDING “B’S” BUILDING
Value $100,000 Value $100,000
Insurance 80,000 Insurance 10,000
Rate 1% Rate 1%
Premium received— Premium received—
one year, 800 one year, 100
No Co-insurance Clause No Co-insurance Clause
Loss 800 Loss 800
Loss Collectible 800 Loss Collectible 800
“B” pays only one-eighth as much premium as “A,” yet both collect the same amount of loss, and in the absence of co-insurance conditions both would collect the same amount in all instances where the loss is $10,000 or less. Of course, if the loss should exceed $10,000, “A” would reap his reward, and “B” would pay his penalty. This situation clearly calls either for a difference in rate in favor of “A” or for a difference in loss collection as against “B,” and the latter can be regulated only through the medium of a co-insurance condition in the policy.
At this point it may not be amiss incidentally to inquire why the owner of a building which is heavily encumbered, whose policies are payable to a mortgagee (particularly a junior encumbrancer) under a mortgagee clause, and where subrogation may be of little or no value, should have the benefit of the same rate as the owner of another building of similar construction with similar occupancy, but unencum¬ bered.
In some states rates are made with and without co- insurance conditions, quite a material reduction in the basis rate being allowed for the insertion of the 80% clause in the policy, and a further reduction for the use of the 90% and 100% clauses. This, however, does not go far enough, and any variation in rate should be graded according to the co-insurance percentage named in the clause, and this gradation should not be restricted, as it is, to 80%, 90% or 100%, if the principle of equalization is to be maintained.
Various clauses designed to give practical effect to the co-insurance principle have been in use in this country for nearly forty years in connection with fire and other contracts of insurance. Some of these are well adapted to the purpose intended, while others fail to accomplish said purpose under certain conditions; but, fortunately, incidents of this nature are not of frequent occurrence.
There are, generally speaking, four forms, which differ quite materially in phraseology, and sometimes differ in prac¬ tical application. These four clauses are: (1) the old co- insurance clause; (2) the percentage co-insurance clause; (3) the average clause; (4) the reduced rate contribution clause.
Until recently, underwriters were complacently using some of these titles indiscriminately in certain portions of the country, under the assumption that the clauses, although differently phrased, were in effect the same, but they were subjected to quite a rude awakening by a decision which was handed down about a year ago by the Tennessee Court of Civic Appeals. The law in Tennessee permits the use of the three-fourths value clause and the co-insurance clause, but permits no other restrictive provisions. The form in use bore the inscription “Co-insurance Clause,” but the context was the phraseology of the reduced rate contribution clause, and although the result was the same under the operation of either, the court held that the form used was not the co- insurance clause, hence it was void and consequently inop¬ erative. Thompson vs. Concordia Fire Ins. Co. (Tenn. 1919) 215 S.W. Rep. 932, 55 Ins. Law Journal 122.
The law of Georgia provides that all insurance companies shall pay the full amount of loss sustained up to the amount of insurance expressed in the policy, and that all stipulations in such policies to the contrary shall be null and void. The law further provides that when the insured has several policies on the same property, his recovery from any company will be pro rata as to the amount thereof.
About twenty years ago, the Supreipe Court of Georgia was called upon to decide whether under the law referred to the old co-insurance clause then in use, which provided
“that the assured shall at all times maintain a total insurance upon the property insured by this policy of not less than 75% of the actual cash value thereof . . . . and that failing to do so, the assured shall
become a co-insurer to the extent of the deficiency,”
was valid and enforceable, and it decided that the clause was not violative of the law. Pekor vs. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (1898) (106 Ga. page 1)

The Co-insurance Clause
The Co-insurance Clause
The court evidently construed the clause as a binding agreement on the part of the insured to secure insurance up to a certain percentage of value, and virtually held that if the insured himself desired to take the place of another insurance company he was at liberty to do so as one way of fulfilling his agreement.

The Georgia courts, however, have not passed upon the validity of the reduced rate contribution clause in connection with the statutory law above referred to; but it is fair to assume that they will view the matter in the same light as the Tennessee court (supra), and hold that it is not a co-insurance clause, even though it generally produces the same result; that it contains no provision whatever requiring the insured to carry or procure a stated amount of insurance, and in event of failure, to become a co-insurer, but that it is simply a clause placing a limitation upon the insurer’s liability, which is expressly prohibited by statute. The fact that the insurers have labeled it “75% Co-insurance Clause” does not make it such.
It is, therefore, not at all surprising that the question is frequently asked as to the difference between the various forms of so-called co-insurance clauses, and these will be considered in the order in which, chronologically, they came into use.
Probably in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred there is no difference* between these clauses in the results obtained by their application, but cases occasionally arise where ac¬ cording to the generally accepted interpretation the difference will be quite pronounced. This difference, which will be hereinafter considered, appears in connecton with the old co-insurance clause and the percentage co-insurance clause, and only in cases where the policies are nonconcurrent.
The first of the four forms is the old co-insurance clause which for many years was the only one used in the West, and which is used there still, to some extent, and now quite generally in the South. Its reintroduction in the South was probably due to the Tennessee decision, to which reference has been made (supra). This clause provides that the insured shall maintain insurance on the property described in the policy to the extent of at least a stated percentage (usually 80%) of the actual cash value thereof, and failing so to do, shall to the extent of such deficit bear his, her or their pro¬ portion of any loss. It does not say that he shall maintain insurance on all of the property, and the prevailing opinion is that the co-insurance clause will be complied with if he carries the stipulated percentage of insurance either on all or on any part of the property described, notwithstanding the fact that a portion of said insurance may be of no assist¬ ance whatever to the blanket, or more general policy, as a contributing factor.

AO Tennis 2 Download PC Game Free

AO Tennis 2 Fitgirl Repack Free Download PC Game

AO Tennis 2 Fitgirl Repack Free Download PC Game final version or you can say the latest update is released for PC. And the best this about this DLC is that it’s free to download.In this tutorial, we will show you how to download and Install AO Tennis 2 Torrent for free. Before you download and install this awesome game on your computer note that this game is highly compressed and is the repack version of this game.

Download AO Tennis 2 Fit girl repack is free to play a game. Yes, you can get this game for free. Now there are different websites from which you can download AO Tennis 2 igg games an ocean of games are the two most popular websites. Also, ova games and the skidrow reloaded also provide you to download this awesome game.

AO Tennis 2 for Android and iOS?

Yes, you can download AO Tennis 2 on your Android and iOS platform and again they are also free to download.

Also Read:

How To download and Install AO Tennis 2

Now to download and Install AO Tennis 2 for free on your PC you have to follow below-given steps. If there is a problem then you can comment down below in the comment section we will love to help you on this.

  1. First, you have to download AO Tennis 2 on your PC. You can find the download button at the top of the post.
  2. Now the download page will open. There you have to log in. Once you login the download process will start automatically.
  3. If you are unable to download this game then make sure you have deactivated your Adblocker. Otherwise, you will not be able to download this game on to your PC.
  4. Now if you want to watch the game Installation video and Troubleshooting tutorial then head over to the next section.

TROUBLESHOOTING

Screenshots  (Tap To Enlarge)

 Now if you are interested in the screenshots then tap down on the picture to enlarge them.
AO Tennis 2 Download
AO Tennis 2 Download

AO Tennis 2 Review, Walkthrough, and Gameplay

This is nothing. The economy is improved for the big ball of nothing. “Rank up and you can fly one of our ships”, and that’s it. Now, let me be fair: “AO Tennis 2 download” is also weaker here. But faction wars unlock all sorts of things beyond just ships. Even missions – which I think are some of the weakest parts in that game – still look like they are written by a human being. Even follow-up missions aren’t just… random. You have tools to find the missions that they really put effort into the story.

But “AO Tennis 2 free download PC game” is built around player interactions, so this is all just background stuff, really. In “Elite: Dangerous”, you’re the background. If everyone stopped playing “Elite” right now, the wars would continue, systems would still change hands, and everything would be very “business as usual”. If everyone trickled out of “EVE” until it was empty (any day now, honestly…), the markets would just have AO Tennis 2 fitgirl repack things, and the player structures would be gone, and it’s just like no one was ever here.

That’s the world of this game: “You can fly a space ship with multiple friends, but you can’t decide how much money to split.” “We’ll figure that out for you, don’t break the simulation.” Well, he got his fair split – I just had to go up to him and tediously jettison out my cargo for him to scoop up. That alone is really a microcosm of my issues with it. Whenever I hear a story about some player doing something nuts in “AO Tennis 2 torrent”, it’s usually IN SPITE of the game’s mechanics. For example, let’s say three powers are fighting in a community event, and each side has to bring a certain amount of materials to a station. A group might organize a blockade and do protection runs – all this neat stuff to fight other players, but then the winner ends up being a completely different faction. The ones who went all solo, and didn’t have to deal with any of that, and just ferried all their stuff over with no problem. Remember: always online/the same universe.

You have multiple ways of getting materials and resources and parts. Imagine if you could make your own ships, or weapons, or maybe even like a space outpost or a mining colony on a planet? Something to leave a mark, and a money sink that’s not just your space ship. What if YOU put out missions for other players to bring you materials? Build something together, instead of for… whoever this is. Your imagination can really run wild from here. But this is a game with no “give friend money” button. That’s where we are. The big endgame grind is going to special engineers to upgrade your ship even more.

This means collecting tons of different materials just to make your ship that much better at… whatever it does. Space sims rarely have just the ship as a money sink. Even if it is, usually it gets something like a great story or seeing your impact on the universe. They’re also not so weirdly stingy about player tools. I mean, imagine “Mount & Blade”, but you could only upgrade your character. You can’t invest in your own enterprises or overthrow an area for yourself, you can’t conspire with AO Tennis 2 download or have your army of underlings. It’s not that bad, but it came to mind. The most interesting missions in “Elite” were the stuff I just came across, but those also got repetitive.

 

The Co-insurance Clause

The Co-insurance Clause
The Co-insurance Clause

Of the more important clauses in current use, the one most frequently used, most severely criticized, most mis¬ understood, most legislated against, and withal the most reasonable and most equitable, is that which in general terms is known as the “co-insurance clause.”
Insurance is one of the great necessities of our business, social and economic life, and the expense of maintaining it should be distributed among the property owners of the country as equitably as it is humanly possible so to do.
Losses and expenses are paid out of premiums col¬ lected. When a loss is total the penalty for underinsurance falls where it properly belongs, on the insured who has elected to save premium and assume a portion of the risk himself, and the same penalty for underinsurance should by contract be made to apply in case of partial loss as applies automatically in case of total loss.
If all losses were total, liberality on the part of the insured in the payment of premium would bring its own reward, and parsimony would bring its own penalty; but the records of the leading companies show that of all the losses sustained, about 65%—numerically—are less than $100; about 30% are between $100 and total; and about 5% are total. The natural inclination, therefore, on the part of the public, particularly on the less hazardous risks, is to under¬ insure and take the chance of not having a total loss; and this will generally be done except under special conditions, or when reasonably full insurance must be carried to sustain credit or as collateral security for loans. There were several strik¬ ing illustrations of this in the San Francisco conflagration, where the amount of insurance carried on so-called fireproof buildings was less than 10% of their value, and the insured in such instances, of course, paid a heavy penalty for their neglect to carry adequate insurance.
Co-insurance operates only in case of partial loss, where both the insurance carried and the loss sustained are less than the prescribed percentage named in the clause, and has the effect of preventing one who has insured for a small percentage of value and paid a correspondingly small pre¬ mium from collecting as much in the event of loss as one who has insured for a large percentage of value and paid a correspondingly large premium. We have high authority for the principle,
“He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly, and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.”
and it should be applied to contracts of insurance. Rating systems may come, and rating systems may go; but, unless the principle of co-insurance be recognized and universally applied, there can be no equitable division of the insurance burden, and the existing inequalities will go on forever. The principle is so well established in some countries that the general foreign form of policy issued by the London offices for use therein contains the full co-insurance clause in the printed conditions.
The necessity for co-insurance as an equalizer of rates was quite forcibly illustrated by a prominent underwriter in an ad¬ dress delivered several years ago, in the following example involving two buildings of superior construction:
“A’S” BUILDING “B’S” BUILDING
Value $100,000 Value $100,000
Insurance 80,000 Insurance 10,000
Rate 1% Rate 1%
Premium received— Premium received—
one year, 800 one year, 100
No Co-insurance Clause No Co-insurance Clause
Loss 800 Loss 800
Loss Collectible 800 Loss Collectible 800
“B” pays only one-eighth as much premium as “A,” yet both collect the same amount of loss, and in the absence of co-insurance conditions both would collect the same amount in all instances where the loss is $10,000 or less. Of course, if the loss should exceed $10,000, “A” would reap his reward, and “B” would pay his penalty. This situation clearly calls either for a difference in rate in favor of “A” or for a difference in loss collection as against “B,” and the latter can be regulated only through the medium of a co-insurance condition in the policy.
At this point it may not be amiss incidentally to inquire why the owner of a building which is heavily encumbered, whose policies are payable to a mortgagee (particularly a junior encumbrancer) under a mortgagee clause, and where subrogation may be of little or no value, should have the benefit of the same rate as the owner of another building of similar construction with similar occupancy, but unencum¬ bered.
In some states rates are made with and without co- insurance conditions, quite a material reduction in the basis rate being allowed for the insertion of the 80% clause in the policy, and a further reduction for the use of the 90% and 100% clauses. This, however, does not go far enough, and any variation in rate should be graded according to the co-insurance percentage named in the clause, and this gradation should not be restricted, as it is, to 80%, 90% or 100%, if the principle of equalization is to be maintained.
Various clauses designed to give practical effect to the co-insurance principle have been in use in this country for nearly forty years in connection with fire and other contracts of insurance. Some of these are well adapted to the purpose intended, while others fail to accomplish said purpose under certain conditions; but, fortunately, incidents of this nature are not of frequent occurrence.
There are, generally speaking, four forms, which differ quite materially in phraseology, and sometimes differ in prac¬ tical application. These four clauses are: (1) the old co- insurance clause; (2) the percentage co-insurance clause; (3) the average clause; (4) the reduced rate contribution clause.
Until recently, underwriters were complacently using some of these titles indiscriminately in certain portions of the country, under the assumption that the clauses, although differently phrased, were in effect the same, but they were subjected to quite a rude awakening by a decision which was handed down about a year ago by the Tennessee Court of Civic Appeals. The law in Tennessee permits the use of the three-fourths value clause and the co-insurance clause, but permits no other restrictive provisions. The form in use bore the inscription “Co-insurance Clause,” but the context was the phraseology of the reduced rate contribution clause, and although the result was the same under the operation of either, the court held that the form used was not the co- insurance clause, hence it was void and consequently inop¬ erative. Thompson vs. Concordia Fire Ins. Co. (Tenn. 1919) 215 S.W. Rep. 932, 55 Ins. Law Journal 122.
The law of Georgia provides that all insurance companies shall pay the full amount of loss sustained up to the amount of insurance expressed in the policy, and that all stipulations in such policies to the contrary shall be null and void. The law further provides that when the insured has several policies on the same property, his recovery from any company will be pro rata as to the amount thereof.
About twenty years ago, the Supreipe Court of Georgia was called upon to decide whether under the law referred to the old co-insurance clause then in use, which provided
“that the assured shall at all times maintain a total insurance upon the property insured by this policy of not less than 75% of the actual cash value thereof . . . . and that failing to do so, the assured shall
become a co-insurer to the extent of the deficiency,”
was valid and enforceable, and it decided that the clause was not violative of the law. Pekor vs. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (1898) (106 Ga. page 1)

The Co-insurance Clause
The Co-insurance Clause
The court evidently construed the clause as a binding agreement on the part of the insured to secure insurance up to a certain percentage of value, and virtually held that if the insured himself desired to take the place of another insurance company he was at liberty to do so as one way of fulfilling his agreement.

The Georgia courts, however, have not passed upon the validity of the reduced rate contribution clause in connection with the statutory law above referred to; but it is fair to assume that they will view the matter in the same light as the Tennessee court (supra), and hold that it is not a co-insurance clause, even though it generally produces the same result; that it contains no provision whatever requiring the insured to carry or procure a stated amount of insurance, and in event of failure, to become a co-insurer, but that it is simply a clause placing a limitation upon the insurer’s liability, which is expressly prohibited by statute. The fact that the insurers have labeled it “75% Co-insurance Clause” does not make it such.
It is, therefore, not at all surprising that the question is frequently asked as to the difference between the various forms of so-called co-insurance clauses, and these will be considered in the order in which, chronologically, they came into use.
Probably in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred there is no difference* between these clauses in the results obtained by their application, but cases occasionally arise where ac¬ cording to the generally accepted interpretation the difference will be quite pronounced. This difference, which will be hereinafter considered, appears in connecton with the old co-insurance clause and the percentage co-insurance clause, and only in cases where the policies are nonconcurrent.
The first of the four forms is the old co-insurance clause which for many years was the only one used in the West, and which is used there still, to some extent, and now quite generally in the South. Its reintroduction in the South was probably due to the Tennessee decision, to which reference has been made (supra). This clause provides that the insured shall maintain insurance on the property described in the policy to the extent of at least a stated percentage (usually 80%) of the actual cash value thereof, and failing so to do, shall to the extent of such deficit bear his, her or their pro¬ portion of any loss. It does not say that he shall maintain insurance on all of the property, and the prevailing opinion is that the co-insurance clause will be complied with if he carries the stipulated percentage of insurance either on all or on any part of the property described, notwithstanding the fact that a portion of said insurance may be of no assist¬ ance whatever to the blanket, or more general policy, as a contributing factor.

Russian Life Simulator Download Free

PerfectLover Fitgirl Repack Free Download PC Game

Russian Life Simulator Fitgirl Repack Free Download PC Game final version or you can say the latest update is released for PC. And the best this about this DLC is that it’s free to download. In this tutorial, we will show you how to download and Install Russian Life Simulator Torrent for free. Before you download and install this awesome game on your computer note that this game is highly compressed and is the repack version of this game.

Download Russian Life Simulator Fit girl repack is a free to play the game. Yes, you can get this game for free. Now there are different websites from which you can download Russian Life Simulator igg games and ocean of games are the two most popular websites. Also, ova games and the skidrow reloaded also provide you to download this awesome game.

Russian Life Simulator for Android and iOS?

Yes, you can download Russian Life Simulator on your Android and iOS platform and again they are also free to download.

Also Read:

How To download and Install Russian Life Simulator

Now to download and Install a Russian Life Simulator for free on your PC you have to follow below-given steps. If there is a problem then you can comment down below in the comment section we will love to help you on this.

  1. First, you have to download Russian Life Simulator on your PC. You can find the download button at the top of the post.
  2. Now the download page will open. There you have to log in. Once you login the download process will start automatically.
  3. If you are unable to download this game then make sure you have deactivated your Adblocker. Otherwise, you will not be able to download this game on to your PC.
  4. Now if you want to watch the game Installation video and Troubleshooting tutorial then head over to the next section.

TROUBLESHOOTING

Screenshots  (Tap To Enlarge)

 Now if you are interested in the screenshots then tap down on the picture to enlarge them.
Russian Life Simulator Download
Russian Life Simulator Download

Russian Life Simulator Review, Walkthrough, and Gameplay

Let me explain it with a few stories. On my most recent return to the game, I decided to start by hauling cargo. It’s a good money-maker, and it’s not that risky, unless you take up a dangerous mission, or go into a bad part of town. So I did some cargo missions, which did not pay a lot, but it was making way more than combat in the area did. Eventually, I decided I would just sell whatever I wanted. But the market info was pathetic – only showing places I had docked at before, and not all of them. In fact, there were barely any market search tools at all. “Russian Life Simulator igg games” have had a tool like this forever, so it was odd to me that “Elite” didn’t have anything like this, but as it turns out – it does. There are multiple third-party tools on the internet for it.

Even for something as simple as buying a ship. I could search here, or dock in stations in-game with an economy that I think MIGHT have the ship I’m looking for. So I see some promising stuff – buy low, sell high, sell higher – and the trip is right next door. But I notice in the market some materials that sell really high in the same station, and, apparently, you need to mine them. Not good old laser mining either. It would be more complex to really move up. So I got a long-range exploration and mining ship. After exploring and nearly getting a pulsar fire, I found a nice system. I look to the planets, probe some rings, and Russian Life Simulator ocean of games the money spot! So I set a course. When I got there, a local checked me out, and then he left as quickly as he came. So I was free to do whatever. Then I had to scan the asteroids. They don’t always change to an obvious color to tell you that they have what you’re looking for, so it’s something I had to learn.

Then I found one with a fissure on it, which means there’s something good inside, and I launched a special drone to see what else was in the rock. More fissures! So I had to launch seismic probes into them, and also keep them balanced, to make sure that the rock didn’t blow up too much because I don’t want to blow up everything inside of it. They were also on a timer, so I barely got out of range before it exploded. Now the rocks are free to be collected by the drones and mined by me. Near Russian Life Simulator fitgirl repack a pop! 2-3 of those are an easy cargo run! I got more. They’re worth more than 200k. Much more. So I went back, and while the drones were collecting up the money, I went back to that web site. The station I went to was low-balling me.

I had a better idea of what I was doing now. For reference, the missions in the area have been paying me a few hundred thousand – maybe a few million – per run, which… You know… That was after expenses. Endgame ships are well worth over 100 000 000 so that all made sense. In my second ever mining run, I went to the station that paid high… and made 170 000 000 credits. Russian Life Simulator PC download? I remembered playing for weeks and weeks back in the day and coming nowhere close to that. I had to tell Dimitri and bring him along. Russian Life Simulator skidrow: “This is the USS “Russian Life Simulator torrent”, we are requesting permission to dock.” Yeah, you can multi-crew your spacecraft.

That’s awesome. Two sets of eyes mean a better chance of getting a promising asteroid. He could also be the gunner to loosen the diamonds, while I maneuvered around the rocks. It worked wonderfully. Russian Life Simulator download: “Take cover, it’s gonna blow!” [*BEWM*] So then we returned back to the station, ready to get rich again. To test it, I only sold some. The game decided he earned 5% of my income. There’s no “give money” button. Okay, where do I start? “Elite” has a huge galaxy with all these factions, but… how different are they? STATION: “It’s good to see you, Commander! Please, enjoy your stay at this facility.” STATION: “Access approved. Make your way to landing pad 1-3.”Russian Life Simulator game download: “Permission granted to come inside me.” STATION: “Okay, Commander, your assigned landing pad is number 3-5.” When the universe is this big, a lot left to be procedural. MOST are procedural.

All the missions and writing – it’s essentially Cleverbot. Names change, locations flip, but it becomes familiar, and quick. Sometimes, developers can hide this, but this is so blatant that there’s no hiding it. To complete your mission, you must choose a reward. It will be money or material I need, because who cares about the station? Go ahead and cross the universe – it will be the same thing.

There’s conflict across the universe, systems change hands, you could pledge your loyalty to any of them. And it doesn’t matter. You could look at the huge map, showing the giant three powers fighting for control, and I just think of the one from 1984. It doesn’t matter who wins – it’ll just be the same thing. This is a big hurdle to investment because they RULE the Russian Life Simulator.

They create all the ship parts, they create all the space ships. That’s really what it decides: where you can buy things, where you can sell things. Most stuff will be accepted everywhere, but there are some exceptions. I know a lot of missions in a Russian Life Simulator will have, like, some fluff text that someone skips through, but you can still read that if you want. It might be a little different, depending on the faction, might talk about some stuff going on in the world and not just say “go collect 5 leaves” or whatever it is.

The Co-insurance Clause

The Co-insurance Clause
The Co-insurance Clause

Of the more important clauses in current use, the one most frequently used, most severely criticized, most mis¬ understood, most legislated against, and withal the most reasonable and most equitable, is that which in general terms is known as the “co-insurance clause.”
Insurance is one of the great necessities of our business, social and economic life, and the expense of maintaining it should be distributed among the property owners of the country as equitably as it is humanly possible so to do.
Losses and expenses are paid out of premiums col¬ lected. When a loss is total the penalty for underinsurance falls where it properly belongs, on the insured who has elected to save premium and assume a portion of the risk himself, and the same penalty for underinsurance should by contract be made to apply in case of partial loss as applies automatically in case of total loss.
If all losses were total, liberality on the part of the insured in the payment of premium would bring its own reward, and parsimony would bring its own penalty; but the records of the leading companies show that of all the losses sustained, about 65%—numerically—are less than $100; about 30% are between $100 and total; and about 5% are total. The natural inclination, therefore, on the part of the public, particularly on the less hazardous risks, is to under¬ insure and take the chance of not having a total loss; and this will generally be done except under special conditions, or when reasonably full insurance must be carried to sustain credit or as collateral security for loans. There were several strik¬ ing illustrations of this in the San Francisco conflagration, where the amount of insurance carried on so-called fireproof buildings was less than 10% of their value, and the insured in such instances, of course, paid a heavy penalty for their neglect to carry adequate insurance.
Co-insurance operates only in case of partial loss, where both the insurance carried and the loss sustained are less than the prescribed percentage named in the clause, and has the effect of preventing one who has insured for a small percentage of value and paid a correspondingly small pre¬ mium from collecting as much in the event of loss as one who has insured for a large percentage of value and paid a correspondingly large premium. We have high authority for the principle,
“He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly, and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.”
and it should be applied to contracts of insurance. Rating systems may come, and rating systems may go; but, unless the principle of co-insurance be recognized and universally applied, there can be no equitable division of the insurance burden, and the existing inequalities will go on forever. The principle is so well established in some countries that the general foreign form of policy issued by the London offices for use therein contains the full co-insurance clause in the printed conditions.
The necessity for co-insurance as an equalizer of rates was quite forcibly illustrated by a prominent underwriter in an ad¬ dress delivered several years ago, in the following example involving two buildings of superior construction:
“A’S” BUILDING “B’S” BUILDING
Value $100,000 Value $100,000
Insurance 80,000 Insurance 10,000
Rate 1% Rate 1%
Premium received— Premium received—
one year, 800 one year, 100
No Co-insurance Clause No Co-insurance Clause
Loss 800 Loss 800
Loss Collectible 800 Loss Collectible 800
“B” pays only one-eighth as much premium as “A,” yet both collect the same amount of loss, and in the absence of co-insurance conditions both would collect the same amount in all instances where the loss is $10,000 or less. Of course, if the loss should exceed $10,000, “A” would reap his reward, and “B” would pay his penalty. This situation clearly calls either for a difference in rate in favor of “A” or for a difference in loss collection as against “B,” and the latter can be regulated only through the medium of a co-insurance condition in the policy.
At this point it may not be amiss incidentally to inquire why the owner of a building which is heavily encumbered, whose policies are payable to a mortgagee (particularly a junior encumbrancer) under a mortgagee clause, and where subrogation may be of little or no value, should have the benefit of the same rate as the owner of another building of similar construction with similar occupancy, but unencum¬ bered.
In some states rates are made with and without co- insurance conditions, quite a material reduction in the basis rate being allowed for the insertion of the 80% clause in the policy, and a further reduction for the use of the 90% and 100% clauses. This, however, does not go far enough, and any variation in rate should be graded according to the co-insurance percentage named in the clause, and this gradation should not be restricted, as it is, to 80%, 90% or 100%, if the principle of equalization is to be maintained.
Various clauses designed to give practical effect to the co-insurance principle have been in use in this country for nearly forty years in connection with fire and other contracts of insurance. Some of these are well adapted to the purpose intended, while others fail to accomplish said purpose under certain conditions; but, fortunately, incidents of this nature are not of frequent occurrence.
There are, generally speaking, four forms, which differ quite materially in phraseology, and sometimes differ in prac¬ tical application. These four clauses are: (1) the old co- insurance clause; (2) the percentage co-insurance clause; (3) the average clause; (4) the reduced rate contribution clause.
Until recently, underwriters were complacently using some of these titles indiscriminately in certain portions of the country, under the assumption that the clauses, although differently phrased, were in effect the same, but they were subjected to quite a rude awakening by a decision which was handed down about a year ago by the Tennessee Court of Civic Appeals. The law in Tennessee permits the use of the three-fourths value clause and the co-insurance clause, but permits no other restrictive provisions. The form in use bore the inscription “Co-insurance Clause,” but the context was the phraseology of the reduced rate contribution clause, and although the result was the same under the operation of either, the court held that the form used was not the co- insurance clause, hence it was void and consequently inop¬ erative. Thompson vs. Concordia Fire Ins. Co. (Tenn. 1919) 215 S.W. Rep. 932, 55 Ins. Law Journal 122.
The law of Georgia provides that all insurance companies shall pay the full amount of loss sustained up to the amount of insurance expressed in the policy, and that all stipulations in such policies to the contrary shall be null and void. The law further provides that when the insured has several policies on the same property, his recovery from any company will be pro rata as to the amount thereof.
About twenty years ago, the Supreipe Court of Georgia was called upon to decide whether under the law referred to the old co-insurance clause then in use, which provided
“that the assured shall at all times maintain a total insurance upon the property insured by this policy of not less than 75% of the actual cash value thereof . . . . and that failing to do so, the assured shall
become a co-insurer to the extent of the deficiency,”
was valid and enforceable, and it decided that the clause was not violative of the law. Pekor vs. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (1898) (106 Ga. page 1)

The Co-insurance Clause
The Co-insurance Clause
The court evidently construed the clause as a binding agreement on the part of the insured to secure insurance up to a certain percentage of value, and virtually held that if the insured himself desired to take the place of another insurance company he was at liberty to do so as one way of fulfilling his agreement.

The Georgia courts, however, have not passed upon the validity of the reduced rate contribution clause in connection with the statutory law above referred to; but it is fair to assume that they will view the matter in the same light as the Tennessee court (supra), and hold that it is not a co-insurance clause, even though it generally produces the same result; that it contains no provision whatever requiring the insured to carry or procure a stated amount of insurance, and in event of failure, to become a co-insurer, but that it is simply a clause placing a limitation upon the insurer’s liability, which is expressly prohibited by statute. The fact that the insurers have labeled it “75% Co-insurance Clause” does not make it such.
It is, therefore, not at all surprising that the question is frequently asked as to the difference between the various forms of so-called co-insurance clauses, and these will be considered in the order in which, chronologically, they came into use.
Probably in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred there is no difference* between these clauses in the results obtained by their application, but cases occasionally arise where ac¬ cording to the generally accepted interpretation the difference will be quite pronounced. This difference, which will be hereinafter considered, appears in connecton with the old co-insurance clause and the percentage co-insurance clause, and only in cases where the policies are nonconcurrent.
The first of the four forms is the old co-insurance clause which for many years was the only one used in the West, and which is used there still, to some extent, and now quite generally in the South. Its reintroduction in the South was probably due to the Tennessee decision, to which reference has been made (supra). This clause provides that the insured shall maintain insurance on the property described in the policy to the extent of at least a stated percentage (usually 80%) of the actual cash value thereof, and failing so to do, shall to the extent of such deficit bear his, her or their pro¬ portion of any loss. It does not say that he shall maintain insurance on all of the property, and the prevailing opinion is that the co-insurance clause will be complied with if he carries the stipulated percentage of insurance either on all or on any part of the property described, notwithstanding the fact that a portion of said insurance may be of no assist¬ ance whatever to the blanket, or more general policy, as a contributing factor.

The ONLY official site for FitGirl Repacks. Every single FG repack installer has a link inside, which leads here. Do not fall for fake and scam sites, which are using my name.