Both of my parents have passed. The insurance company says that since the house is now empty, they will continue the coverage, at an increased price, for one year. After that, since these types of homes are bad risks, they'll probably have to cancel the policy. Is this typical and if so, what are the options for coverage? Am new to all this. TIA
question about homeowners insurance
- Thread starter mr12182
- Start date
I'm not an expert on homeowners insurance, but I've dealt with these types of issues before. What your agent told you sounds about right to me, although I haven't heard of a one-year cap before.
Now that I think of it, I can think of several instances where homes were vacant in excess of one year without any difficulty maintaining insurance coverage.
Now that I think of it, I can think of several instances where homes were vacant in excess of one year without any difficulty maintaining insurance coverage.
As an agent, I can tell you there is a much greater risk of some thing happening. Empty houses have much more loss exposure that ones that are lived in. In addition any loss is typically going to be larger. What's happening to you is very typical
I too wonder why you would leave the home unoccupied. It seems renting or selling would be the way to go.
A few years ago I bought a foreclosed house that had been vacant for a year or more. All electrical and plumbing fixtures were gone. I needed to redo plumbing to my sinks too.
A few years ago I bought a foreclosed house that had been vacant for a year or more. All electrical and plumbing fixtures were gone. I needed to redo plumbing to my sinks too.
Exactly. Lower the price until you get an offer.
While you may not "like" the number, it's off your hands.
I guarantee you that if you are willing to pay someone will sell you insurance.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Well, of course that's "true", but it may not be the economical way to go. In this case, let's assume insurance can be sourced SOMEWHERE for 1% of the property's value (probably high, but who knows). Would you rather hold out for a reasonable offer and pay insurance for 2 years or let the price fall by 10% to make the sale happen now, even with property taxes racking up in the meantime? Rhetorical, I know
We wouldn't just be talking about property insurance. We would be talking about paying property taxes, maintaining the property, the chance that the property faces damages while sitting empty. Taking a loss at 10% now is better than hopefully taking a full price offer that is not promised two years later.Originally posted by Pepperman:
Well, of course that's "true", but it may not be the economical way to go. In this case, let's assume insurance can be sourced SOMEWHERE for 1% of the property's value (probably high, but who knows). Would you rather hold out for a reasonable offer and pay insurance for 2 years or let the price fall by 10% to make the sale happen now, even with property taxes racking up in the meantime? Rhetorical, I know
I assume it is free and clear so sell it for what you can get or rent it out. But you need to get someone living in the house. The insurance I pay on my rental properties isn't as high as the insurance I pay on my residence but that may be because of the size.
