I agree,that was 10 years ago,but the nasty taste is forever tainted in my mouth forever.I would never use them again..EVER
best landlord insurance?
- Thread starter zap brannigan
- Start date
I agree,that was 10 years ago,but the nasty taste is forever tainted in my mouth forever.I would never use them again..EVER
concerning.
I would also be interested in hearing Bretts comments.
Going through an interesting insurance issue (PPOR, though) right now. Will start new thread once a landing is achieved.
This really seems like they're clutching at straws. What do they care if your property is not covered by landlord insurance? Damaged carpets is not a good enough excuse for skipping your mortgage payments.
I would read the PDS carefully, and not be tempted by saving $8 per year. Read my post above for some things to look out for when reading the PDS, they are issues that landlords lose thousands over.
LandLord Insurance
Hiya
My experience with Terri Sheer has also been good; got into trouble with one of my tenants skipping rent plus damage the property; in the end, i was only out of pocket by a little...mind you, i did think my Property Manager did a very good job...but they also recommend Honan Insurance whom they recently help a client recover 50K of tenant damage
I took out a separate building insurance with Allianz and they provide flood cover...
Hiya
My experience with Terri Sheer has also been good; got into trouble with one of my tenants skipping rent plus damage the property; in the end, i was only out of pocket by a little...mind you, i did think my Property Manager did a very good job...but they also recommend Honan Insurance whom they recently help a client recover 50K of tenant damage
I took out a separate building insurance with Allianz and they provide flood cover...
Sorry for delay I'm sure I didn't receive an email that comments had been made and have been snowed with other work.
My understanding is that Terri Scheer treat their damage excesses much the same way EBM does. It depends to some degree on the type of damage. Malicious Damage claims have a single excess applied regardless of the number of "events" whereas Accidental Damage claims can have a separate excess per event. That's the way the Product Disclosure Statements read (ours and TS), but in practice it can be open to interpretation so there is some grey in there.
It also gets down to what the insurer classes as an "event", I know from our viewpoint we've often been able to link things together that may technically be separate events, but as they are related can tie them together reducing the potential excess.
There are certainly some policies however that shall remain nameless that will wipe out many potential claims because of the way excesses are applied, so you do very much need to watch out for this.
Trying to really understand what a policy is like from PDS's is extremely difficult, unless you are trained to do it. In fact even then it's difficult. Unfortunate but true.
There are a load of problems with comparison sites of course, one being that they generally have a vested interest of trying to sell you a product, so they generally only list those that they have arrangements with. And when it comes to the comparisons policies are very hard to line up against each other because there can be so many intricate details that make a big difference. Then add to that how often the damn things change.
As a general rule remember "what one insurer giveth, another taketh away". Most policies have their good points and bad points, you just need to decide which areas of risk you are most comfortable leaving yourself exposed to. That said, some policies are simply crap.
The other thing to bear in mind is that the actual PDS is only the first stage, it's what happens when you have to make a claim that really matters.
All iI know is form my experience with car insurance and some home that Westpac, SBA, Virgin re all rebranded products form usually the one source and priced at he bottom end. So it is that insurer you are dealing with and they don't care like you think Westpac will.
I would not even consider EWBC over EBM for a diff of $8.
FYI Peter
I don't want to bag out anyone, including the banks, but ask yourself how much the banks care when passing on interest rate cuts and then transpose that to insurance, which for them is just an add-on service that they can make a few more bucks out of.
As for there being an argument that they have a vested interest in ensuring the property is well insured because they do the finance???? Yep, that's fantasyland I'm afraid. They use the cover that they are offering you because that's the best commercial arrangement they could come to. And I believe that with at least many of the banks the staff are on incentives for the more add-on products they can sell. "Do you want fries with that?"
I have to stop now, I could easily rant.
They actually ask us brokers to do that and our aggregators are trying to push us to do it as well for the 'alternative revenue stream'. Call me old fashioned but I refrain from it as it just distracts from the core service proposition.
Actually now that you say that, I do recall a good advert that one of our competitors had once which went along the line of:
"You wouldn't go to an insurance broker to get finance, so why go to a bank to get insurance?"
It simply makes sense to use specialists.
Agree.
My wife left banking in the 90's becasue it was "you must sell products to pensioners, however etc.." regardless of need.
I know form the experience of trying to get cover on a low km LPG ute how most are all one player who didn't want to know me. All wanted market cover based in age which after taking the new LPG out would have valued immaculate UTE with 60,000km on the clock at $1500.
Tell em there dreaming!
Peter
Does anyone have experiences with Honan, CGU and NRMA?
My quotes are all roughly the same for a house + granny flat.
Honan $1280 with 2 separate landlord and building policies. front house for 220K, granny flat for 220k
CGU $1216 with combined landlord + building policies for both (also rent default protection and 10mil liability insurance) Front house and granny flat 320K.
NRMA is also $1200; but if the tenant defaults they take 4 weeks rent
My quotes are all roughly the same for a house + granny flat.
Honan $1280 with 2 separate landlord and building policies. front house for 220K, granny flat for 220k
CGU $1216 with combined landlord + building policies for both (also rent default protection and 10mil liability insurance) Front house and granny flat 320K.
NRMA is also $1200; but if the tenant defaults they take 4 weeks rent
I reckon you are under-rating your risk management. You must be very good in selecting the investment property (location and type - construction etc), selecting tenants and managing. Especially managing. It is a people management business.
Hats off to you, it is hard work and many of us inevitably lapse in our diligence and attention to our cost. My usual faults are trusting people and insufficient attention to detail.
I used CGU in the past. After a claims experience I stopped using them and will not use them again.
Never been a fan of cheap insurance.Its cheap for a reason.
It amazes me how people choose insurance based on price and don't read the PDS. Yes, it takes a lot of time to read over them all, and the only way to compare and make sure you have not missed anything is to compare on a spreadsheet. Some are easy to read (the general insurers) others like the specialists are a PIA. One I compared a few months ago actually displayed the wrong PDS on their web site - and were not aware. I did not bother to tell them as the Sydney office was hopeless - out of about a dozen I compared it was the only company who could not give me a price on the spot, had to ring Adelaide and call me back later that day - which he also did not do.
You have to read the PDS sooooooooooooooo carefully, it is easy to misinterpret or not realise that they they don't cover something you actually want cover for.
You have to read the PDS sooooooooooooooo carefully, it is easy to misinterpret or not realise that they they don't cover something you actually want cover for.
I have to say it always astounds me. It's important to ensure you get "value" out of your insurance, but that doesn't necessarily mean the cheapest price. You need to ensure the risks you want to be protected against are going to be covered, as well of course that the company is going to pay claims.
Unfortunately, it is often difficult to match up PDS against PDS, as there is often interpretation involved, but far better to do that than simply pick the cheapest price. I've been saying for ever and a day, "not all insurance is the same".
In fact I recall a quote I saw once which I can't lay my hands on right now which was along the lines of, "Saving a little on insurance today may cost you a lot tomorrow, should the policy not pay your claim".
Like most things, don't rule a policy out because it is the cheapest, but be suspicious of it. It may very well be cheap for a reason.
