Landlord insurance thread #??

[tez]

Hi all,

I know there are bazillion other landlord insurance threads although this is more to do with coverage. More specifically, damage caused by tenants.

Ive been looking around at a couple of insurers for quotes as I need to take out insurance for the settlement of my property. While reading the features of each policy, there is once which stands out for me, Malicious damage by tenant.

It seems most policies only have limited cover in this respect (along with loss of rent / default.

EBM cover up to $50,000
NRMA cover up to $10,000

None really cover up to full replacement value of the home.
What worries me here is for example, if the tenant totally trashes my IP, then there is always a chance I may be out of pocket big $$$.

CGU and possibly Westpac Insurance cover full replacement value for malicious / vandalism caused by tenants.

What are your thoughts on this and anyone have a policy which covers more?

 

[bojangles]

I'm just about to sign up with Westpac again for LL insurance plus because ive got the prof package with them i get $100 discount on excess.I think this even beats Terry Scheer. Plus you can pay by the month..

 

[beachside]

Any reseller (bank etc) will likely just be underwritten by one of the majors (or a JV). I have reviewed the policies of most of the companies - previously with Suncorp, now with NRMA (for price more than cover) and now looking at Apia (only just qualify ) CGU is the poor adopted child of NRMA (IAG) and is treated as such internally - would be scared to go there. I did consider them at one stage (see a previous post) but policy wording was contradictory and all attempts to clarify intention with staff confirmed my previous opinion of CGU. AAMI has a good basic cover but a bit shallow in some ways.

The bottom line is that malicious damage is malicious damage and you generally do not need full replacement cover - unless they spend a lot of time damaging it without drawing attention to themselves. Malicious damage is not fire, so if the place was set on fire this would be covered under fire and not malicious damage.

You may need to read policy coverage many times and cross reference different areas of coverage and exclusions to clear up queries. Interpretation of "," and "or" can make a huge difference!!!