house insurance

We are planning on doing a world cruise but haveing problems

getting insurance cover for the house been empty all that time

Any one with any information tried most uk companies

Not sure about the insurance part, but have you considered a house sitter?

This question arose here about 6 months ago but with the search feature down, I wouldn't know how to find that thread.

If I recall correctly, it was noted that if you have someone stay overnight as few as one or two nights during the time period you are gone, the house would not be considered unattended and they were able to get insurance. Perhaps you could arrange for a friend or relative to do that for you.

It likely is a good idea to have someone come in periodically to be sure there hasn't been a water pipe burst or something that needs attention.

Check with your insurer to see if an overnight or two would suffice to comply with policy terms.

I suggest you get hold of a property management company to do regular house checks. Speaking as someone whose house was made pretty-much uninhabitable by a small broken plumbing fitting, in the course of 2 hours, I also suggest you turn off the water supply and drain the lines before leaving home.

Welcome to Cruise Critic.

Call your insurance company and inquire how many nights a person(s) need to stay so that you don't have to pay inflated insurance rates.

If you have a relative that lives near you -- have them stay a few days each month you are away.

Make certain that you have someone collect your mail everyday -- neighbors are good for that. Stop your newspapers.

If you live in the north -- arrange for someone to shovel your driveway (and sidewalks if you have them).

What's with these insurance companies now days? I was just told by my own insurance company that I MUST have someone in my house when I am gone more than 30 days or my insurance is no good. And I don't even have a standard homeowner's policy because my liability is too great and homeowner's won't cover it (very large 9' deep diving pool in my backyard, 5 dogs and some business out of my home). I have a specified perils policy with huge liability coverage. The policy only covers fire and wind. Separate policy for contents. So what does me being gone have to do with the insurance coverage? I sure can't stop the wind and if there is a fire, I will most likely kiss my house goodbye just due to being so far from a fire dept both in Missouri and Arizona

Now that my DH has passed away, it is more difficult to meet their requirements. When I leave the USA for business for more than 30 days, I take my dogs to my farm in Missouri and my main admin, who lives in one of our farm houses, takes care of them. But my house in Arizona-no one is there if I am gone more than 30 days. So now I have to hire someone to come in and stay at my house? Sounds rather bizarre to me and I really don't want someone in my house that I don't know very well. I could come back, everything would be gone and I BET there would be no coverage. Talk about a Catch 22.

I can't help the OP, especially because she is in the UK. I am trying to solve my own problem of the same nature. But it will be a continuing problem for those of us that don't live in STANDARD housing (homeowner's association, neighbors close, that kind of thing).

I am assuming you already have house insurance and your just seeing how the trip affects your cover?

My husband and I are frequently away for extended periods for work or holidays and we have never told the insurance when we are going. We have a cat and the neighbour comes in and feeds her once a day, collects up the mail from our mailbox and just makes sure everything is ok.

We did once get our house broken into when we lived in London and were away for a few weeks, it did not affect our claim when we got back and if anything I found the insurance company to be very helpful and sympathetic over our returning from a trip to that. Our insurance is with Santander ...

Any unoccupied house is at greater risk: from burglary once it is seen as unoccupied, or damage from flooding or broken window, or even rodent infestation. Naturally insurance companies see that that puts them at greater financial risk. Having someone check the house regularly is simply common sense in any case. Depending on your insurance company, either periodic checking, or having someone stay overnight once in a while should work.

You do not want to ignore the insurance company's requirements.

I suggest you get hold of a property management company to do regular house checks. Speaking as someone whose house was made pretty-much uninhabitable by a small broken plumbing fitting, in the course of 2 hours, I also suggest you turn off the water supply and drain the lines before leaving home.

Us too. We have just replaced carpet and tile flooring due to a small water supply line to a toilet which broke in the center of the house. I woke up hearing running water in the middle of the night No telling how long it had been going. Thousands of dollars in damage/replacements. We always turn off the water to the house when we leave town. That wouldn't help if we were just out for the day, but I have heard horror stores of water pouring out of houses when owners were on trips. Can only imagine how awful that would be.

So call me ignorant but how will an insurance company know how long you've been gone or if the house is unoccupied? Assuming, of course, you leave the utilities on and have the yard maintained? I can't imagine you're leaving without anyone checking on your house at all so it would be unlikely an issue would go longer than a few days without being discovered.

What am I missing?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So call me ignorant but how will an insurance company know how long you've been gone or if the house is unoccupied? Assuming, of course, you leave the utilities on and have the yard maintained? I can't imagine you're leaving without anyone checking on your house at all so it would be unlikely an issue would go longer than a few days without being discovered.

 

What am I missing?

They won't know unless you need to file a claim for something that happens while you're gone. In that case, they may ask if the house was unattended or it may be obvious by the extent of damage (say a water leak) that the problem wasn't discovered right away. THEN you're in trouble, as they won't pay the claim. It it's a substantial claim, you can bet that they'll check how long you were gone. In some cases, if having someone at home wouldn't really have made much difference, such as a fire, you might be able to appeal the refusal to pay, but your chances of winning aren't good and it just adds to the stress.

We have friends who once came home, walked in the front door, and immediately knew they were in trouble when they saw grass growing out of their carpet! There had been a hairline crack in the toilet tank, water slowly leaked into the carpet, and grass seeds that that been buried there sprouted! I think they gave up on fighting the insurance company and just paid for the damage themselves.

So call me ignorant but how will an insurance company know how long you've been gone or if the house is unoccupied? Assuming, of course, you leave the utilities on and have the yard maintained? I can't imagine you're leaving without anyone checking on your house at all so it would be unlikely an issue would go longer than a few days without being discovered.

 

What am I missing?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Virtually all insurance policies have a "vacancy clause" that states "if the property is uninhabited for XX consecutive days the property is considered vacant" and the coverage is reduced to what ever it says.

Insurance companies are looking at this more carefully due to the large number of abandonments to foreclosures.

As another posted the damage from a 2-hr water leak vs a 2-week leak will be considerable and will be investigated.

Some "higher-end" policies covering "high-value-high-net-worth" properties will allow extended vacancies as long as it looks like it can be lived in immediately. These policies are for owners with that have multiple residences, sometimes in multiple countries, and they pay a hefty premium for the coverage.

What's with these insurance companies now days? I was just told by my own insurance company that I MUST have someone in my house when I am gone more than 30 days or my insurance is no good.

In simple terms, I'm sure they've figured out that the risk goes up if the home is unoccupied >30 days. It could be a dripping faucet that escalates into a flood, a smashed window that leads to a burglary, a critter problem that escalates into a weak door frame that allows a break-in, or perhaps unpaid utility bills that lead to no power/no gas/no water which leads to no heat/no cooling/no fridge/air bubble in the hot water heater.

Here in Florida, we have many people who are "snow birds" that is they only live in their

Florida homes in the winter and then return to 'home' in the north for summers. I've never asked, but surely they have some homeowners insurance in both places, even though they are away for more than 30 days. If they have a mortgage on either or both properties, they are required to have insurance.

So, perhaps they have some sort of special insurance. Also, what about those people who take extended cruises of more than 30 days?

I'm not offering a solution, just a comment that there must be a way around these 30 day 'rules.'

Here in Florida, we have many people who are "snow birds" that is they only live in their Florida homes in the winter and then return to 'home' in the north for summers. I've never asked, but surely they have some homeowners insurance in both places, even though they are away for more than 30 days. If they have a mortgage on either or both properties, they are required to have insurance. So, perhaps they have some sort of special insurance. Also, what about those people who take extended cruises of more than 30 days? I'm not offering a solution, just a comment that there must be a way around these 30 day 'rules.'

First, I note that the original poster in this thread is in the UK where insurance laws are apparently different.

I'm in the states and frequently travel or "snowbird" for several months at a time. I've contacted my insurance company several times on this point, and they consistently tell me that they do not consider my home to be "vacant" unless I have permanently moved out with no intention of returning (and, in that case they offer a special "vacant home" policy). But in my case they tell me my coverage remains in place while I'm away (even for several months), and I don't need any special/additional policy or rider.

Naturally, this is just my experience, and I can't speak to how other insurance companies might handle it.

OP, I'm in the US, so I cannot be specific, but there must be a way. We just cruised with a couple from the UK who spend 8 weeks in Florida every winter. I can't believe they don't insure while they are gone, but I don't know what they do.

Your best bet might be a house-sitter or property management company. I would speak with your normal insurance agent and ask what they recommend. Perhaps there is a company in your area that provides this service?

It is difficult to imagine that in Britain, the home of the entire concept of insurance, that there is no way to insure a vacant home. Sure, it will probably cost more -- it should, because there is greater risk of greater loss.

What is most likely the case is that there is a (natural) reluctance to pay for something extra: coverage when a home is unoccupied.

On a separate note, I would like the poster who stated that his homeowners policy covers in cases of long term vacancy to provide the name of his insurer. It is a virtual certainty that he is paying premiums well in excess of what would be required if he had standard coverage.

On a separate note, I would like the poster who stated that his homeowners policy covers in cases of long term vacancy to provide the name of his insurer. It is a virtual certainty that he is paying premiums well in excess of what would be required if he had standard coverage.

If you are referring to me, the company is Foremost, a specialty insurer of mobile/manufactured homes offered via AARP. The premiums are quite reasonable, and far cheaper than any other company I've found.

Naturally, your mileage may vary. :-)

If you are referring to me, the company is Foremost, a specialty insurer of mobile/manufactured homes offered via AARP. The premiums are quite reasonable, and far cheaper than any other company I've found.

 

Naturally, your mileage may vary. :-)

Because in life it usually works out that you get only what you pay for, I would very carefully read the coverage contract of a policy that:

A) Was "... Far cheaper than any other company..." And

B) Provided coverage for long term vacancy which virtually every other company does not do without special rider involving additional premiums.

I do not disbelieve you, but I am amazed to hear the above.

Because in life it usually works out that you get only what you pay for, I would very carefully read the coverage contract of a policy that:

 

A) Was "... Far cheaper than any other company..." And

B) Provided coverage for long term vacancy which virtually every other company does not do without special rider involving additional premiums.

 

I do not disbelieve you, but I am amazed to hear the above.

Permit me to clarify your "B" comment. I never said the company in question provided coverage for "long term vacancy." In fact, I don't believe that they do. What I said was that they don't consider my home to be "vacant" for this purpose merely because I am away for a long period of time (even several months). As I stated before, they define "vacant" to mean that I've permanently moved out of the home with no intention of returning.

The question here is the definition of "vacancy," and different insurance companies apparently define it differently. So in addition to "carefully reading" a policy, I believe one must inquire as to how terms are defined. My general experience in such matters is that all such terms are "as defined" terms, and those definitions do not necessarily follow common dictionary meanings.

As always, your mileage may vary. :-)

Permit me to clarify your "B" comment. I never said the company in question provided coverage for "long term vacancy." In fact, I don't believe that they do. What I said was that they don't consider my home to be "vacant" for this purpose merely because I am away for a long period of time (even several months). As I stated before, they define "vacant" to mean that I've permanently moved out of the home with no intention of returning.

 

The question here is the definition of "vacancy," and different insurance companies apparently define it differently. So in addition to "carefully reading" a policy, I believe one must inquire as to how terms are defined. My general experience in such matters is that all such terms are "as defined" terms, and those definitions do not necessarily follow common dictionary meanings.

 

As always, your mileage may vary. :-)

Congratulations on finding an insurer which offers substantially broader coverage than most others while charging lower premiums. I hope you never have to put them to the test.