Search results

Even being conditional you could still be in trouble. If you're at high LVR, you probably will get knocked back and that will save you. But imagine a mature couple who are upgrading and owned their previous home outright. When they bought the new one, they put in the contract "subject to...

No, I think you have less chance of getting out due to B & P, as your remedy in such an instance is to make an insurance claim and have an entirely new home built. It's hard to argue that a brand new home, that hasn't been built yet, isn't satisfactory.

Wrong! In QLD, the property is at your risk, and thus insurance is required, from 5pm the day after contract signature. I think your mortgage broker is working on the mistaken assumption that if you had a conditional contract, you could use the condition to get out of the contract. Unless the...

OK, I'm seeing our point of difference. In the absence of the gratuitous offer from the vendor to rescind the contract, my understanding is that tigerGT had a binding obligation to purchase, which in most states is not negated by the fire. What makes you think that the purchase contract...

If you're suggesting that the fact that a gratuitous offer by the vendor to release you from the contract negates your insurance, are you able to provide cases or some other reference supporting this position? I'm aware of the requirement to mitigate losses, but I don't think this is a...

If it was a great deal, why don't you insist on the contract being fulfilled and claim on the insurance, like tigerGT wishes he had? I don't believe the vendor can just withdraw from their obligation to sell to you because of the fire. If they're offering to release you from your obligation to...

I suspect you're correct now that the contract has been rescinded, TF, but you're not arguing that the insurer wasn't obliged to pay when tigerGT made the claim, surely? At that time, tigerGT had a binding contract to purchase.

Yes, it is a shame that you took your $12K back; you definitely would have had a case with the IOS if you'd insisted the insurer pay out, based on the facts as I understand them and conveyed them to the IOS. I am so very sorry; of course I didn't want to make you feel worse. :o I'd still give...

As many forumites will know, I'm a researcher; I like to get to the facts. This thread so intrigued me that I contacted the Insurance Ombudsman Service in order to get a definitive answer regarding insurance prior to settlement. Their advice: If you have a binding contract to purchase...

tigerGT, have you sought legal advice? I really think you had an insurable interest in the property, otherwise - as auror highlights - why do insurance companies continue to accept our business when we buy policies prior to settlement? I know it's not a great outcome, but in some ways, given...

I'm glad that things look like they'll turn out OK for you, but I am very surprised at this. Since I'm sure that you can be forced to settle despite a fire, I'd love to know how you protect yourself if your insurer says that despite accepting payment for the policy, they won't provide coverage...

You're absolutely right, George, it was wise to take out insurance, and thanks for sharing the story as a salutary lesson to others. :)

You bet! Even if neither party had insurance, or coverage were denied for some reason, you may still be compelled to settle. :eek: People have been forced to buy land with a house that was incinerated a few days prior to settlement. There are two separate issues which can come into play...

I understand differently to Buzz; I believe you do still have to settle unless you specifically have a clause stating that the property has to be in a condition satisfactory to you at settlement. Even in that case, I wouldn't be surprised if you still have to settle, on the basis that the...