If I move out of a paid for house I own and leave it empty but I continue to maintain it and pay the property taxes and utilities, all without issue, will my Home Owners Insurance premiums go up? Or worse will the policy get terminated as soon as the insurance company finds out no one is living there?
I’m pretty sure it varies depending on the insurance company, but you may want to take a look for a vacancy clause in your policy that will terminate coverage if the property is let vacant for a certain period of time.
Would not the insurance company or agent be best able to advise?
“Would not the insurance company or agent be best able to advise?”
Well, I’m sure they would but I don’t want them to get any ideas, if you know what I mean.
Many policies distinguish between “vacant” (no resident, no contents, no utilities) and “unoccupied” (no resident, but utilities are on and there’s furniture). If property is in either status for more than a set amount of time, such as 30 or 60 days, then coverage can be reduced or terminated entirely. The explanation is that if nobody is checking the place regularly, vandalism is more likely, as is a small problem growing into a big claim.
You’ll need to check the language of your policy specifically, as different companies have different standards. Also, most companies can sell you a rider (at additional cost) to cover vacant or unoccupied properties.
I should be able to go in there and a request a copy of my policy without causing too much suspicion… I hope.
The only FQ answer is that your detailed policy language will control. Read it.
Unless your insurance company is positively primitive, their website can probably provide you a copy without any human involvement.
It’s a decent bet it requires you to notify them if the property is unoccupied, or is occupied by anyone other than the known owners. Such as your grown kids, renters, friends, etc.
Some agents may be willing to treat your question as hypothetical.
I don’t think I want to place that bet.
I will read it as soon as I can
In that case, read the policy, as others advised. However, do you want to rely solely on your understanding of the situation?
They have vacant home insurance which averages about 50% to 60% more than normal insurance:
There’s actually a semi-valid reason for the coverage being more expensive. In P&C insurance, you have a duty to mitigate - IE minimize the ongoing/increase in damage as soon as possible. In an example I gave in another thread as a former adjuster, if your car’s sunroof for example is damaged, but you leave it uncovered while waiting for an adjuster to view it, or otherwise delay your claim, and it rains/gets insects or animals, your policy will still likely cover the sunroof, but you’re on the hook for all the secondary damage.
With a home, it’s likely many times worse - both the total value, and the cumulative damage that occurs when it’s vacant for a long time. Leaking water heater or broken pipes flooding the place (already an oft-overlooked coverage on homeowners policy)? Short that you might have noticed if present, that later causes a total loss and surrounding property damage via fire? Vandalism/robbery of the house that ends with the same sort of supplemental damage from broken windows because you didn’t know about it for 2 months? And on and on and on.
Even if you don’t have to change your coverage by policy (unlikely, but possible, again review your contract), all of the above leaves it in your interest to find a quality, bonded team to do periodic reviews of your property. And considering your efforts to be sub-rosa on this, because you apparently don’t trust your carrier, or possibly want them to cancel/change it proactively, it may leave you high and dry. If something happens and they find out it’s been vacant the whole time (very likely) they’re going to deny the claim as breech of contract and you’ll have paid those lower premiums for nothing anyway.
Similar situations in auto policies I wrote and did claims for. If you intentionally conceal (and often unintentionally material facts there’s a great chance it’ll be denied for fraud or breech of contract. Probably (short of non-payment of premium) my biggest reason for denying a claim was when a party let an excluded driver (a clear policy point) drive because “it was just once!”
A very sobering note as well, if the reason the claim was denied was deemed to be fraudulent behavior on your part… well that information gets spread to most P&C carriers very, Very quickly, which will make getting future insurance of any sort much more problematic.
So, read your policy, and if there’s any doubt, then bite the bullet and ask an agent, and get confirmation in writing. And pay the additional premium or look for another (quality) carrier. Otherwise it’s very easy to end up paying money for nothing if something DOES go wrong, which is much more common than you’d think.
I was in insurance for 30+ years and was once told, “Do not read an insurance policy. You have to study it.”
Yeah, I remember trying to read one long ago and I recall it seemed to be loophole after loophole of ways to not give the insured any return on their investment.
When money talks integrity walks.
I wonder if the situation changes if the home has a full security system?
Or find a house-sitter.
I had to read a lot is insurance policies when i was studying for actuarial exams. In general, it’s not about “loopholes”, it’s about precisely laying out the terms of coverage.
Anyway, i agree that you should read your homeowner’s policy, and see what it says.
This will absolutely help any insurance premium - if you have one and haven’t told your insurance company about it, you need to.
For the OP, call your agent. The agent doesn’t really profit from jacking up your premium, the underwriters do. The agent is there to make a sale and make you happy. If you’re unsure, just tell them you’re thinking about buying a summer house or a rental property, and want to understand how the insurance will work on it.
Why not just rent it out?
Which is one of the reasons I support a regulatory approach: all hazards are always covered fully to repair / rebuild to status quo ante. Period. No questions, no quibbles.
Stop the ongoing competition to produce ever more swiss-cheesed coverage in pursuit of ever higher profits and/or ever lower headline premiums. As a practical matter the public cannot be expected to understand the complicated tradeoffs, and there are legions of people harmed when the coverage they thought they had proved to be illusory.
Would this sort of insurance cost a lot more than current typical coverage? You bet. But it would be an accurate reflection of the costs of the risks being run. Everything about marketplaces works better when price signals are clear, and works shittily when price signals are muffled. Insurance is no different.
[/soapbox]
I feel much better now, thank you!
FTR: No, I have never been screwed by such a situation myself. It’s just a feature of our society / economy that really bugs me.