Sat, Nov 21, 2009
|
Insurance and the ''Subject to'' Dilemma
| | Tuesday, December 23, 2003 @ 08:44 AM EST
|  Printer Friendly Page
 Send this Story to a Friend |
Contributed by: Tim Norris
Tim Norris Properties
Read more archived articles about Law and Legal Issues
I will do my best to clarify the timeless issue of how to properly insure a "subject to" property. The obvious dilemma with this situation is the "Due on Sale" (DOS) clause being invoked and the mortgage company calling the note. Though seemingly complex, some common sense rules-of-thumb usually apply.
If you (or your entity) own, or have a financial "stake" in the property, be the "first named insured". The first named insured is the primary recipient of any potential claim benefit or liability
protection. An "additional insured" will garner liability protection only. A "loss payee" will have it's interests protected in the event the property itself is damaged. (A mortgagee is inherently BOTH). If you decide to keep the "homeowner's" policy in place and be named as the additional insured, be advised. If it is discovered that the ex-owner, the first-named insured in this case, no longer owns the property, expect the insurer to deny based upon the fact the policyholder no longer owns the property. Even if you manage the claim to be paid, you are not the entity to receive the proceeds, as you are not the first-named insured. If you did attempt to be added as a loss payee as well, chances are the insurer will question the necessity for you being named as such. When the insurer discovers you now own the property, they will need to write a new policy.
The proper way to insure the property, once you (or your entity) own it, is to have a non-owner occupied "landlord" policy, with you as the new first named insured. The bank/mortgage company is named, as normal, as mortgagee. The prior owner should be named as the additional insured ONLY. Naming the prior owner as additional insured will usually keep the mortgage company happy.
But, you may ask, why not keep the ex-owners policy in place? One concern of carrying 2 policies on the same property is that most policies have "excess" clauses. In other words, the policy will pay only excess amounts, if any other policy exists. If each of the 2 policies have such a clause it will create havoc in getting a loss paid...
To further clarify the scenario here is a hypothetical example:
Property has a "homeowner" and a "landlord" policy (both) on it. Fire occurs. Owner files a claim under the landlord policy. So far, so good. However, "tenant" (prior owner, or new occupant), has personal property damage. He must also file claim, but against his "homeowners" or tenants policy. The respective insurance company on each claim is bound to find out of the other policy's existence and could (more than likely would) attempt to invoke the "excess" clause of it's own contract, potentially leaving the owner waiting for courts/arbitration to settle... I wouldn't take the chance with 2 policies. If an insurer has an opportunity to mitigate, or deny, a loss if there are contractual issues, be sure they'll try!
(As an added note, if the prior owner moves out, the "homeowners" policy is no longer valid as the property is now "non-owner-occupied").
Bottom line: if you own it, you insure it. If the fact that a DOS clause is/would be invoked if the insurance policy changes, I would walk away before potentially diminishing or even sacrificing coverage by trying to "skirt" the correct way to insure the property. In 12 years, we have yet to have a loan called (knock wood) by insuring the new owner on a "landlord" policy and naming the bank (and the old owner) as mortgagee and additional insured respectively.
Hope this helps your understanding. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.
Happy Holidays!
Word Cloud:
"first inherently insurance could ex-owners concern tenants chance "homeowners" "homeowner's" "stake" named, "landlord" insuring sure excess correct sacrificing bound named further personal company prior usually question mortgagee existence recipient damaged. take they'll discovered "additional each landlord benefit mortgagee. deny such. non-owner common "non-owner-occupied"). discovers event clause first free waiting upon case, should additional even respectively. moves property />
but, policy's first-named "due policyholder />
property likely away />
the protection. need before receive advised. (more note. insured". have keep this clarify deny, liability policy, />
to issues, such helps will expect "tenant" issue timeless "homeowner" would) decide policies invoked though would rules-of-thumb naming it's walk paid... getting files property, insured bank settle... place? />
happy />
hope most calling must both). when out, (and loss well, also interests questions. under carrying write owns policy complex, "loss trying years, called obvious here diminishing only mitigate, to'' claim, paid, payee" />
(as financial (dos) payee "subject property. contractual (prior ask, bank/mortgage note, changes, owner insurer chances sense example: ex-owner, proper occurs. is/would words, there than clauses. "skirt" proceeds, (knock loan itself leaving amounts, apply. contract, sale" happy. courts/arbitration against damage. other file exists. potentially />
bottom properly valid fact owner) invoke fire dilemma opportunity best find try! claim longer entity) protection policies. own, potential create entity occupant), protected hypothetical based however, />
if place insured, (both) insured" seemingly they understanding. same holidays! once respective with being owner, wood) primary line: scenario coverage insure ''subject good. manage attempt far, insured. occupied "excess" situation necessity added mortgage garner only. some normal, feel havoc wouldn't policy.
|
|
| |
Average Score: 4.60
Votes: 23
|
|
|
|
|
Logged In members can moderate all comments.
|
|
