This topic contains 12 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Anonymous 7 years, 10 months ago.
- May 12, 2011 at 1:44 pm #209386
I’m not a big fan of AMEX, and I’ve ignored the numerous offers they’ve sent to me…until now.*
They may get me with this one.*
It’s for a Premier Rewards Gold Card.* They’ll give me $750 in gift cards (75,000 points) if I spend $1000 within the first three months.
It’s got me to thinking.* I mean, I can’t ever be bought…but I can be rented!
- June 20, 2011 at 8:21 am #442583
Your insurance should atleast be enough to cover the cost of the loan. If your home is worth more than the amount of the loan, you insurance should be for the value of the home. If your loan value is greater than the value of the home (which is bad for many reasons) you would need insurance to protect the lender in the case of loss of the home.
- June 20, 2011 at 8:28 am #442584
You only need to insure your home to the replacement cost – your lender should accept coverage equaling the appraised value of your home EXCLUDING LAND – remember, when you are insuring your home you aren’t insuring the land. So your insurance amount is typically your loan minus your land value, unless you got a great deal on your purchase price and your home is worth more. You can’t be required to overinsure your home.
- June 20, 2011 at 9:16 am #442585
That is illegal. Homeowner’s insurance should be the current value of the home, not including the price of the land.
But they may be talking about the PMI insurance, which should be enough to cover the loan. My insurance agent messed that up when I was buying my home.
- June 20, 2011 at 10:14 am #442586
Think about this for a second. The lender is able to make reasonable requirements in order to safeguard their surety interest. If you didn’t have a mortgage you’d be free to fore go insurance completely so why would it be “illegal” for you to only have insurance on 80% of the value of your home?
This is the situation I’m in and I only have coverage for about 80% of the value of my home. For one reason, I live in downtown Chicago and even if my home burned to the ground I’d still own the property which would still have significant value. Why should I insure the value of the raw land?
Your agent is just trying to drive up the amount of insurance you buy.
- June 20, 2011 at 10:22 am #442587
Most lenders want to see Evidence of Insurance that states dwelling coverage for atleast the amount financed OR “Full Replacement” on dwelling. They have the right to request this and you have the right to choose a different lender.
- June 20, 2011 at 11:17 am #442588
It is to your advantage, weather happens, fire happens, and every thing else that may happen that effect your ability to repay your loan
- June 20, 2011 at 11:27 am #442589
Your lender is going by the “instruction manual” that he has. The insurance guy is probably right, however, that doesn’t matter ONE BIT if you can’t get the mortgage company to agree with it.
You need to talk to the lending supervisor – they SHOULD accept a policy covering the house, at 100% the cost to rebuild. It’s stupid for them to require you to insure the value of the land, as it can’t burn down, and can’t be stolen. ;
You might want to ask your agent to call the lender, to have HIM negotiate this deal – that’s part of their job!!
- June 20, 2011 at 11:57 am #442590
No, they cannot make such request. YOU are the primary policy holder. All the decisions are up to you.
- June 20, 2011 at 12:51 pm #442591
There’s nothing stopping you from insuring your home for 110% of it’s replacement cost, or even 150% or 200%. However if there’s a claim the insurer, as per the insuring agreement, is responsible for the amount of the loss, minus your deductible (if applicable), subject to the limit of your policy and your percentage financial interest in the object insured, that is it. If it will cost $ 100 000 to rebuild your house, and you insure your home for $ 150 000 because that is the amount of your mortgage, if the house were to burn down to the ground, and you choose not to rebuild, the insurer is responsible for the actual cash value of the house ($ 100 000 – easiest to use replacement cost) on the date of the incident, minus the deductible. If you or the mortgagee wish to claim the $ 150 000, the two of you will have to prove that the house would have cost $ 150 000 to replace. Since the mortgagee has over a 100% financial interest in the property insured (meaning the policyholder would have 0%), they would get the entire $ 100 000 minus the deductible, however they would not get $ 150 000, and if your lender thinks they will they obviously do not know how insurance works. This is just focusing on the building, the contents and aditional living expenses (if covered) would not be included in the above since the mortgagee has no financial interest in them.
It is unethical for an insurance broker/agent to sell more insurance than is necessary (a broker/agent can be reprimanded or lose their licence for doing so), so this may be a reason why your agent is a little upset for being put in this situation (life insurance is different). However the rule exists to prevent agents from selling more than what the client needs in order to gain more comission. IMHO there would be no ethical conflict since the insured, knowing full well all that I have explained here, still wishes to purchase a higher limit.
- June 20, 2011 at 1:23 pm #442592
Your home insurance should reflect the replacement cost (less foundation and land) of the home. If your lender is a federal bank they can not require more than the replacment cost. However is some States, State chartered banks do not have this rule. In most cases the loan will be more than the replacment cost since a significant amont of the value is in the land, as previously mentioned. Regardless of the limit the most the insurance company will pay is the replacment cost so over insuring is just a waste of money.
- June 20, 2011 at 2:12 pm #442593
the lender has a right to protection of his assets
- June 20, 2011 at 2:32 pm #442594
Yes they can request it but whether it is legal is up to your state laws. In Minnesota there are a lot of $ 500,000 old mobilehomes sitting on lake lots!! Minnesota changed the laws to state that a lender can not require more than the replacement cost of the house because the land is so valuable. Unfortunately, the lenders are getting around this by denying the loans!!
Check with your state and see if there are laws against this.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.