Landlord Insurance

Hi Propertytalk

I have just renewed my building insurances with AAMI and they spoke to me about a new product,landlords insurance (just started 8 August)which when you pay building insurance it is just an additional $20-$30! Which is alot cheaper than the purchasing the 2 separately.

Details are sketchy at the moment (from me as buggered tonight and only half listening)
but they will send out info in the mail.

Sure sounded ok and covers all the normal landlords tenant from hell things like vandalism, vacancy period etc will give you more details after I read the spiel.

Cheers

Jenny1

RACV (in VIC) also seem to be offering something similar to AAMI. Can’t remember how much extra it was.

Rod.

Hi Donna and everyone else

I have had to claim on several policies for landlords (I’m the PM) and it is only when you do make a claim that you realise what is and what is not covered. IE., just making a claim through CGU and unless damage is malicious (and you can prove it), you are not covered. Example is polished floor boards (new at commencement of tenancy, had some issues with tenant during tenancy), so when they left there were lots of scratcheds/gouges! Now need to prove it is malicious as insurance company saying it is accidental so that they dont have to pay!

Also keep in mind all (in my experience) malicious claims have a minimum excess of $500 and they charge this per incident (not per claim). ie., if floor boards in lounge maliciously damaged and carpets in bedroom have cigarette burns – then $500 per incident!!

So lots of things to ensure your insurance company covers – cheapest not necessarily best.

I’ve used several brokers ie., MGA Insurance & Terri Scheer Insurance brokers – both OK but again need to find out excess on loss of rent, accidental/malicous damage, etc.

Hope this helps[daisy]

Yasna & Simon

We’ve made 3 claims on our policies re: our IP’s over the past 11 years.

All 3 have been rejected.

Many people are blissfully under the impression “Oh, it’s OK, we’ve got insurance”.

Now we jack the excess right up, to get the premiums lower…knowing full well that it really needs to hit the fan before you make a claim. Even then, I have very little confidence of a claim ever being approved in full. That’s your hope / aim, but their intent is very much 180° diametrically opposed. I can’t see too many win/wins in this lot.

Insurance companies have some very clever and sneaky little nitpickers working for them. Their job is very much not to automatically approve your claim, despite the fluffy smiling little faces on their ads.

There is a very good reason why Warren Buffett has enjoyed owning insurance companies as his # 1 preference for a vehicle. That massive pot of premiums just sitting there ready to be invested (holding cost of funds is free !!) and best of all he is absolute control of how much trickles back out to hapless policyholders.

Nowhere in their charter will you read that they intend on looking after their customers and promptly pay all claims. What you will read is something like….get the premiums up as high as possible, and limit the outflow of cash via claims to the absolute minimum. That way we can shovel gob loads of dividends to our shareholders and receive nice big fat personal bonus’.

Meanwhile, people who have their PPoR’s damaged by floodwaters sit in the mud while very smartly dressed suits argue the toss over whether it was a storm, a flood, water damage, precipitous downpour or simply an usually wet event…[blink] Either way you cut it, you’re still sitting in the mud and they most certainly aren’t about to pick up a broom or bucket to help.

I liken ins. co’s to casinos. If you’re not with the house…you are definitely on the losing team. Trouble is – how do you get onto the winning team ??

Sorry Donna, I realise that didn’t help you much, but I like a good venting every now and again.

Cheers,

Dazzling

“No point having a cake if you can’t eat it.”

We just changed from Westpac (contents and landlords ins.) to AAMI yesterday, saving $1500 on 4 properties. They were helpful, patient and very cheap. Better everything, for less…. Westpac’s renewal message was their first, and last message we received from them, two weeks after their cover finished… a good reason to change if nothing else.

A job is fun, but….

Hi Donna,
I also have insurance with CGU – not the cheapest but included is malicious damage by tenants cover which apparently not too many insurers include in their policies. Probably better to pay the extra for this cover – and be able to sleep at night.
Regards,
Jake

I’m always concerned about the malicious cover that landlords insurance is supose to cover.

On almost all insurance policies that I have read, you are only covered for malicious damage caused by your tenants. I brought this up with westpac and suncorp and they said that is right.

I’ve taken out landlords cover through Terri Scheer which covers you for malicious damage caused by Tenants, their family and anybody lawfuly on the premises.

I also have Barclay debt collectors basic plan as added cover, it carries no excess and they can get all your money back for damages or loss of rent as long as the tenant doesn’t leave the country. Which only cost $44.00 p.a.

I totally agree with Dazzling. Most people hate lawyers, I hate insurence companies.

We have multiple properties with landlords insurence, I made one claim in 15 years with CGU under their malicious damage policy.

We got vacant possession of a propety where the tenants kicked in 4 doors, broke shower screens, screen doors, ovens, etc about $4000 of damage.

CGU agreed to pay but there was a $500 excess for EACH door. Their malicous damage act only kicks in if you can proove that it was all done in ONE day not over a period of several years, like in our case.

Bunch of morons
[angry2][angry2][angry2][angry2][angry2][angry2]

We buy properties in Adelaide. Immediate Cash Settlements, No Real Estate Agents, No Fees.
[email protected]
phone 0412 437 582

Heya Dr X,

I gather the house won then….just for a change.

I bet you hear people all the time saying “It’s OK, we’re covered…we have insurance for that.” I always fall about the floor in stitches when I hear someone say that. They obviously haven’t put a claim in and gone up against the people that play hardball with your premiums.

The industry I am in pretty much “self insures” due to the very reason outlined above. The exorbitant premiums charged versus the ridiculous exclusions makes the whole business of insurance so one sided it’s far better to just take the risk and pay up when needed. At least you don’t need to argue and bicker with someone or some corporation whose standard line is

“Thank you very much Mr/s …., but unfortunately unless you can prove your claim to our lawyers satisfaction, we couldn’t possibly accept any liability, and therefore I’m most afraid to say that your claim under clause 23.5.6.f (ii) section 4a of your policy has been specifically excluded and therefore rejected. We appreciate your continued support and look forward to your next premium payment. Have a nice day”.

The whole farce got a whole lot worse after 9/11, when the clowns wearing the wigs started arguing the toss over whether the event was one or two. That precedent trickled down and found it’s way into every policy.

How many people out there know exactly what they are buying when they purchase insurance ?? I read the documents…all of the fine print, and then spend days on the email asking clarifying questions of the authorised reps. It’s always staggering what you aren’t covered for.

I reckon if you sat down and did a cost benefit analysis w.r.t. insuring your IP’s, the only event worth insuring is the full on fire scenario, and even then they’ll try their utmost to wriggle out of it.

I wonder what it takes to start up your own insurance company ?? Maybe we could all club together, strip off the premiums and then reject every claim that came in….viola…instant insurance company.

Cheers,

Dazzling

“No point having a cake if you can’t eat it.”

The experiences I have read here just reinforces my decision not to have Landlords insurance. It is supposed to cover the disasters but doesn’t seem to do so. I have full building cover (including landlords fixtures and fittings) and keep that updated.

I have found it worth reducing my risk by employing a good PM. Have had only 1 claim against bond monies in the past 10 years across all my properties. And nothing that would have been a claim against Landlords Insurance. So far, I am ahead.