EBM vs Terri Scheer

[jsjtech]

Hi,


I currently have few investment properties in Melbourne insured directly with CGU and RACV.

To obtain consistency in pricing and features I did a quick search on teh Internet and came up with EBM and Terri Scheer as likely companies that provide good features for landlords with multi-policy discount.

I have joined the forum today only (this is my 2nd post) and quick search revelas that experts on this forum also rate these two highly.

My question - based on dealings and experience, which one of these two is better for a portfolio of around 8 properties in Melbourne.

Many Thanks
JSJTECH

 

[yorkiefish]

hi, and welcome to the forum.

i have used ebm and they've been o.k. bit more expensive. then used aami and am now mostly with westpac. very competetive.

see how u go.

yorkie

 

[The Y-man]

Do search on both copanies in the forum - should bring up results...maybe. Otherwise use google with domain somersoft.com (go to advanced search in Google)

We use EBM - and have claimed quite a few times. Easy, no fuss.

The Y-man

 

[.toe]

This may not be relevant but this was my experience. Purchased a property in a herritage overlay. Terri Scheer would not insure it as their underwriters policy forbade it. I contacted their underwriter (Vero) for clarification and was told they'd be happy to insure me directly.

 

[aljarvis]

Has anyone ever actually claimed on this form of rental insurance? I haven't bothered with it in the past as the only benefit I see is if your property is empty for 10 weeks than the pay your rent for you. I figure that if it is empty that long it is not a good investment property and you should consider selling. Have I missed something?

 

[aljarvis]

Just to be clear, I mean landlords protection insurance and not building insurance.

 

[.toe]

Just to be clear, I mean landlords protection insurance and not building insurance.

They're often wrapped up together

 

[The Y-man]

Has anyone ever actually claimed on this form of rental insurance? I haven't bothered with it in the past as the only benefit I see is if your property is empty for 10 weeks than the pay your rent for you. I figure that if it is empty that long it is not a good investment property and you should consider selling. Have I missed something?

It may be empty due to a HWS blowing up or a stove catching fire.

I've calimed it for things including water damage to fittings, fire in the kitchen (including fire briage call out fee), theft of fittings/malicious damage, etc

The Y-man

 

[Ajax]

I claimed unpaid rent on EBM landlords insurance for a unit in Auburn (I think it was for 10 weeks unpaid rent). My managing agent put the claim in. I thought the managing agent would have more leverage given the number of landlords who the agent had refered to EBM.

Paid in full...no dramas. I think it took about 8 weeks to come through but I was very happy with EBM.

Landlord insurance just adds another level of protection if you hold property with higher than average risk of default/damage by tenants...and its fairly cheap. Was told when I bought in Auburn that landlords will have no problems with tenants about 85% of the time (it was the corollary that concerned me).

I use landlord insurance on only 1 of 3 IP's. A managing agent has suggested I use it for another IP but I don't think the risk of default or damage is that high and I don't want the agent thinking they can be slack chasing up unpaid rent or vetting new tenants.

 

[normailson]

They're often wrapped up together

No, they're not. I have just changed a few properties (over a period of insurance attribition) from EBM Rentcover (Landlord only - EBM's original product) to EBM Ultra (Building AND Landlord)

It was slightly cheaper than the RACV / EBM combos that I was running.

BTW, I've also had a claim against damaged carpet running into the thousands paid by EBM no worries. That claim was only months into my time with EBM and I was a bit worried I wouldn't have the credibility. I tried claiming a couple of times with AAMI landlord and they must have special training on "pushback".

 

[Nathan]

I use both, but Terri Scheer is best for me.

Look @ the excess for claims.

There is no excess for rent loss, and max incident excesses are 2 for a whole policy, EBM (claim I had few yrs ago) charged per incident so $400 per room of carpet excess, and after they depreciate age or carpet its pointless claiming.

So very big diference read fine print.....

Goodluck and welcome to forum.

 

[cmason]

Anyone have any extra to add to this.

I am currently tossing up between these 2 for my new IP and will move my others across as well.

Both seem very similar EBM has $10m more Legal Liability but has $400 excess per event for malicious damage compared to Terri Scheer's $250 per event.

Currently with Allianz on my others but seen in the PDS only covered up to $10K for malicious/accidental damage where as both these are up to $50K

Any comments on these 2 companies would be greatly appreciated

 

[Luv2Travel]

Currently with Allianz on my others but seen in the PDS only covered up to $10K for malicious/accidental damage where as both these are up to $50K

Mine are with Westpac, and I know I really need to get on top of it and investigate further but I just haven't yet. Anyhow, I rang recently to discuss upping the building insurance cover as I wasn't comfortable with what I had (prefer to have too much than not enough!). Somehow it came up in that phonecall about the malicious damage clause, something I hadn't thought about. Malicious damage to me meant totally trashing a place, kicking holes in walls etc. I thought $40K would cover it and I would be fine and that's what I had in place for the last year or so. This person mentioned to me that if the malicious damage extended to the tenants deliberately burning the house down as opposed to accidentally burning it down then I would not be covered under the building insurance, so would have to rely on the landlord insurance policy. So my $40K of cover wouldn't go far in re-building.

Maybe this person told me the wrong thing, or maybe Westpac (whoever they go through) are just a bad policy, but it sounds pretty scary. I upped my malicious damage to the full building insurance amount and it only increased my premium by $50 a year, so for peace of mind I don't mind paying that. Although I do really need to investigate more insurance policies and do some real homework!

Can anyone confirm what I was advised about the malicious damage and being covered under building insurance typically? It seems odd to me (although sort of makes sense, as if I the owner burn it down I can't claim on building insurance so it does sound like a landlord insurance claim) as many people don't have landlord insurance as they aren't concerned too much about a tenant doing some damage, but if building insurance won't cover re-building of it if a tenant maliciously burns it down, it sounds like a massive risk.

 

[cmason]

Mine are with Westpac, and I know I really need to get on top of it and investigate further but I just haven't yet. Anyhow, I rang recently to discuss upping the building insurance cover as I wasn't comfortable with what I had (prefer to have too much than not enough!). Somehow it came up in that phonecall about the malicious damage clause, something I hadn't thought about. Malicious damage to me meant totally trashing a place, kicking holes in walls etc. I thought $40K would cover it and I would be fine and that's what I had in place for the last year or so. This person mentioned to me that if the malicious damage extended to the tenants deliberately burning the house down as opposed to accidentally burning it down then I would not be covered under the building insurance, so would have to rely on the landlord insurance policy. So my $40K of cover wouldn't go far in re-building.

Maybe this person told me the wrong thing, or maybe Westpac (whoever they go through) are just a bad policy, but it sounds pretty scary. I upped my malicious damage to the full building insurance amount and it only increased my premium by $50 a year, so for peace of mind I don't mind paying that. Although I do really need to investigate more insurance policies and do some real homework!

Can anyone confirm what I was advised about the malicious damage and being covered under building insurance typically? It seems odd to me (although sort of makes sense, as if I the owner burn it down I can't claim on building insurance so it does sound like a landlord insurance claim) as many people don't have landlord insurance as they aren't concerned too much about a tenant doing some damage, but if building insurance won't cover re-building of it if a tenant maliciously burns it down, it sounds like a massive risk.

Certainly doesn't sound right. All the policies I've looked at today had $10-50K for malicious damage. And in the PDS's exclusions of where they would not cover listed things like war, terrorism, rodents etc

 

[Luv2Travel]

Certainly doesn't sound right. All the policies I've looked at today had $10-50K for malicious damage.

I've just pulled out my policy. It says; Home Building Insurance - cover is $300,000. Then under the Landlord Insurance it says; Malicious damage by tenant to the building $300,000 (this is the bit that originally had $40,000).

I'm assuming a tenant pouring petrol in your house and setting it on fire and burning it to the ground would be malicious. So, does that mean your building insurance would cover you? That's what I'm confused about. Either way, I have peace of mind now knowing that I'm covered under the building insurance and/or the landlord insurance for the full amount now.

 

[Tuppence]

don't want to hijack... but we are trying to insure a place in Ballarat at the moment. EBM don't want to know about it unless it's been replumbed and rewired in the past 25 years. How anyone finds that out - or, more importantly, proves it - is beyond me.
So, looks like we won't be going with them, and we will be removing IP1 from them as well. Might check out Terri Scheer...

 

[.toe]

don't want to hijack... but we are trying to insure a place in Ballarat at the moment. EBM don't want to know about it unless it's been replumbed and rewired in the past 25 years. How anyone finds that out - or, more importantly, proves it - is beyond me.
So, looks like we won't be going with them, and we will be removing IP1 from them as well. Might check out Terri Scheer...

I tried both of those for Ballarat, had the same issue with EBM. Terri Scheer on the other hand had an issue with our property being in a herritage overlay, despite the fact that it's not a herritage house and I can do almost anything to it that anyone else can. They told me their reinsurer, Vero, wouldn't allow it. Vero said they had no problem with it, so we are now insured with them on the equivalent (and cheaper) policy.

 

[angela1]

I will be pulling my building insurance with Terri Scheer, since they don't offer flood cover. Have made a claim with l/lord insurance with them, no probs, but we are changing to Suncorp for building.