Perhaps but would the security system detect a leak that is causing water damage? That is the kind of thing that might be spotted by a resident.
I had this situation when I was selling my house in Illinois. Farmers Insurance required me to get a dwelling fire policy (commercial/landlord insurance), if vacant for more than 30 days. It was a little more expensive, but also covered somewhat less. But Fire, Windstorm, Vandalism & Malicious Mischief were all covered which are the big ones.
I have looked at quite a few claims where the house was vacant when the damage occurred and the insured had failed to notify theor insurance. Claim denied.
I have also seen quite a few where the insured was away and the home sat for several days before damage was discovered. When the heat goes out for several days in February in Alberta the damage is eye watering. There will be a clause in your policy specifying how often the home must be checked, be sure you know what that is.
Homeowners coverage is highly regulated, and most carriers use the same policy form, with minor variations. (like different choices of deductibles.) The insurance industry can’t just “cover all hazards” because then a significant flood would take out some carriers. Probably the cheaper carriers (and the more local, of course). And when carriers are swamped by too many claims for them to pay, one of two things happens:
- their customers are screwed
- their customers are paid anyway, usually by the rest of the insurance industry. So the people who paid more premium up-front are subsidizing those who bought coverage from el-cheapo insurer.
Another reason for “swiss cheese” is to make it clear which insurance will cover a particular loss. There’s overlap between what “just cover it” would cover for auto and homeowner’s insurance, for instance. And when it’s ambiguous, it does become the customer’s problem, especially if multiple carriers are involved, because nether wants to pay what the other owes.
Neither does the underwriter, in general. The company does as a whole. Some of that might or might not trickle down to individual employees.
Some agents are independant, and represent many companies. They might get a bonus from one of the companies they do business with if they send it enough business, or enough profitable business, or…, but they aren’t actually employed by the insurers. Other agents are employees of the insurance company. Telling something to an employee is basically telling the company, although I suppose it depends on what their procedures are. I tend to buy insurance from carriers who write direct business (so my agent is an employee, and I probably talk to a different agent every time I call) because they have a lower expense structure. If you have an independant agent, the agent “owns” your business, and you will talk to that agent (or someone in the same small shop) every time.
You ought to know whether you are working with an independant agent or a direct writer, because that affects your relationship with the agent.
Yeah.
When I as condo prez we maintained a dozen to 15 separate insurance policies from about 10 carriers. And we owned no vehicles nor directly employed any people. Had we done so we would have needed a bunch more policies.
We rarely had claims, but the finger pointing between the basic building insurance, the building mechanical insurance, the water damage insurance, and the general liability insurance was legendary. Given that most of our claims were essentially aging plumbing failing which created a water leak which created damage to building and to unit owners’ units and personal property.
Be nice to cut through that Gordian knot of overlapping interests and replace them with one monolithic interest. The infighting and the cost of the infighting benefited no one across the whole enterprise. It wasn’t even a zero-sum game. It was a negative sum game. Except when viewed from the narrow perspective of one of the policy issuers, not all of them.
So most of your claims were due to inadequate maintenance? No wonder you had issues with insurers.
Eh, that’s probably a touch harsh. Based on my (limited personal) experience with Condo associations, I’d bet it was more like:
Association Leads: We’ve all heard complaints about the old pipes, we agree there is a problem. We’ve gotten three bids on replacing them, but it’s going to cost $XXXXXX. We can do that by increasing all condo fees by $YYY for the next 3/5/7 years. Let’s put it to a vote!
Individual Condo Owners: Well F— that, I’ll put up with leaky pipes, and complain about it. It’s YOUR problem to make things go away!
Associate Leads: (shrugs) Well, I’m not Musk, so I can’t pay it myself, if that’s the will of the community.
And months / years later, something brakes unrecoverably, or worst case, the whole building collapses, and the insurers are going “You LET it get to this state by ignoring it for HOW LONG?!?!?!”
Sure, that’s why most condos defer maintenance. But insurers aren’t crazy about paying for stuff that’s damaged that way.
My father-in-law was an insurance agent, and made it clear that a house had to be checked daily (??) to avoid the insurance hassles. Fortunately, he took it upon himself to do so when we were on vacation.
My parents’ house in NJ was vacant for almost 2 years before it sold while they were in care homes. When my stepmother with Alzheimers died, it made it a lot easier for my father to sell the house without complicated court involvement. My nephew mentioned the sale happened just in time, since the insurance was up for renewal and they would have had to say the house was vacant, which would have (he said) made the premiums significantly higher. He was checking on it less than once a week… It went through at least one winter, with utilities running and in a nice neighbourhood had no vandalism or breakins, so fortunately he never tested the insurance policy. I presume he did not tell the insurer it was long-term vacant.
My wife’s grandmother had a condo when she was in the same situation, and the polite fiction was she might be returning to it “any day now”. But again, my father in law checked on it regularly and never mentioned the insurance angle.
I had a similar situation to the OP when we were preparing to sell my late mother’s house. We were doing some repairs as time allowed so it was empty for quite a while. I had not even thought about the issue until our carrier dropped us like a hot potato when they found out the house was vacant for an extended period.
We had to go through a broker to get specific coverage for a vacant property and while I can’t remember the exact amount, I do remember it was significantly more than the regular coverage and had quite a few exclusions. It was enough higher that it pushed us to sell the home faster than we might have otherwise.
Of course, your mileage may vary and every state and situation is going to be different. You definitely need to check with your insurer to be sure you’re actually covered before something major happens and you find out you aren’t and they deny the claim.
I take your point. But it’s a little more intricate in that buildings in that era were built with cast iron drain systems. Which did not age well near the ocean.
All over the coastal USA beachfront condos hailing from the great building boom of, say, 1965-1980, are coming up on end of life with their drain systems.
Replacing the pipes entails ripping out everyone’s walls and bathroom decor. Lining the pipes entails less disruption, but still lots, and results in a sorta inferior outcome.
There are enterprising law firms attempting to go after cast iron pipe manufacturers and builders and architects under a theory of an inherently defective product. I don’t quite agree, but I see some of the point. IANA architect or building engineer, but if a building is expected to last 100 years, it kinda needs to be built with the inaccessible, difficult to replace systems engineered to be life of structure. Not 30% of life of structure.
Builders and developers are very careful to create a separate business to create each building, which business disappears once the building is done. Hoping thereby to foreclose any tail liability a decade or more before it emerges.
It’s a mess.
I’m glad it’s no longer my problem.
You didn’t ask, but my advice is always don’t play games. I have a brother who refuses to tell his insurance co that he has a dog, because he’s indignant that they’re going to add a couple bucks a year to his premium.
Until something isn’t covered, and suddenly the $12/year he saves won’t look like a bargain.
Same here, I’d say. Tell the insurer and sleep well at night.
It also occurs to me if you rent the house instead, it’s a different type of insurance with different conditions. I’ve never had to look at landlord insurance, but I’m sure it’s extra fun.
There are a huge number of houses where the insurance cover is homeowner insurance where the owner is attesting that they are living in both or all three of the houses they own.
Effectively they have no landlord insurance.
These are folks who are getting mortgages under owner occupied programs for multiple properties and renting them out. Some “accidental landlords”.