Home insurance?

[Homeslice]

I have a house that's empty, and it's going to remain that way for the rest of the year while it's getting renovated. Apparently I am supposed to get a special "vacancy" insurance policy instead of normal homeowners?? Fine, but the trouble is, the quote I received was almost double what the previous owner was paying with his regular homeowner's policy. WTF?

[Rangerscott]

Smells like a fish taco. I wonder if that is because vacant houses seem to get broken in and destroyed often.

[101lifts2]

You bought a house (finally)? Where is it?

Prolly what Scott said. Vacant houses tend to get broken into or lived in.

[t-homo]

Most companies wont write a vacant property in the first place. If they write it without a vacancy permit, coverage for theft/vandalism/malicious mischief will be dropped 30-60 days after it becomes vacant. Your best bet would be talking to an agent about getting a builder's risk policy, especially if you are going to be there a lot of days.

[Gas Man]

Originally Posted by t-homo

Most companies wont write a vacant property in the first place. If they write it without a vacancy permit, coverage for theft/vandalism/malicious mischief will be dropped 30-60 days after it becomes vacant. Your best bet would be talking to an agent about getting a builder's risk policy, especially if you are going to be there a lot of days.

I agree. My BIl had this issue when he bought a house and was doing work on it before they moved in. Sucks but talk to your agent.

[goof2]

I suspect everyone else is right about vacant properties having more issues with squatters, vandalism, and theft.

[LeeNetworX]

Slice - is this the home of your relative that recently passed? The one that you got all of the arms out of and sold off? Did he leave you the house as well?

[Homeslice]

Yep.

So now they are telling me the Vacancy policy covers liability and damage, but not the contents. Well if it doesn't cover contents like his old policy did, why is it more expensive? Yeah I know there's more risk if it's vacant, but IMO the biggest risk would be someone stealing the contents, yet they're not even going to cover the contents, so why is it so expensive? Dipshits.

I'm going to ask about a builders risk policy.

[LeeNetworX]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Yep.

So now they are telling me the Vacancy policy covers liability and damage, but not the contents. Well if it doesn't cover contents like his old policy did, why is it more expensive? Yeah I know there's more risk if it's vacant, but IMO the biggest risk would be someone stealing the contents, yet they're not even going to cover the contents, so why is it so expensive? Dipshits.

I'm going to ask about a builders risk policy.

Maybe they are more expensive because they consider vacant homes a high risk for copper theft, wire theft, etc. ? Ripping out that stuff typically causes much damage which costs much more than the value of the stuff they are stealing. Just a guess.

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by LeeNetworX

Maybe they are more expensive because they consider vacant homes a high risk for copper theft, wire theft, etc. ? Ripping out that stuff typically causes much damage which costs much more than the value of the stuff they are stealing. Just a guess.

Not to mention arson,vandalism, etc... Neighborhood teenagers will jack a vacant house up in a minute.