AA Insurance no longer offering rental home insurance - alternatives?

[TheLiberalLeft]

Don't expect that to last though, flyer. I'm with an assortment, and when NZI recently upped one place's cover from $580 to $799 I thought "bollocks to that" and went with AMI, who insure other places for me. Total around $650.

AMI's costs have risen too, but they're still cheaper than the competition EXCEPT that they've been bought by IAG/AIG/whatever and when this deal is finalised the rates will climb markedly.

[ream]

A few years ago, we went with AMI for everything because they were so cheap that a broker's quote (no idea who the insurer was for that one) was the same as AMI's...except that it turned out that the broker's invoice was for X + levies + GST and AMI's was for X incl levies & GST. Seemed like a no-brainer, we just didn't realise that AMI were the ones with no brains

[DazRaz]

Tower have been good with my quake claim so far. Also with AMI and State but those will be under cap.

[Shoreman]

Aon's Stylecover product is underwritten by Vero - it's not as comprehensive as the product you get from Vero and it's worth checking the fine print to make sure you know what you are getting.

I am a broker in Auckland (we have clients country wide) and we use Vero for almost all of our clients' rental properties. We find that they have competitive premiums - not the cheapest by any means, but competitive nonetheless.

Their claims service is among the best, and wording extremely good plus you can add the landlords plan policy to it which extends cover for things like a tenant absconding and some of the loss of rents suffered, malicious damage by the tenant, "p labs" among other things.

We also have access to Aon's Stylecover product, but use that when clients would prefer the lower cost option rather than the quality product option.

[Shane D]

Home and Income Insurance cover.

I was just re-reading David Whitburn's book called Invest & Prosper with Property. In it he mentioned that if you own Home and Income properties you MUST look at the Tower policy.

Can a broker reading this or anyone with H&I properties explain to me the Tower H&I policy? Does it save a lot of money over the normal 2 x seperate policies for a H&I.

Alternatively I could probably call them and find out :-)

Thanks

Shane

[mrsaneperson]

Home and Income Insurance cover.

I was just re-reading David Whitburn's book called Invest & Prosper with Property. In it he mentioned that if you own Home and Income properties you MUST look at the Tower policy.

Can a broker reading this or anyone with H&I properties explain to me the Tower H&I policy? Does it save a lot of money over the normal 2 x seperate policies for a H&I.

Alternatively I could probably call them and find out :-)

Thanks

Shane

Im with Tower .It could be that Tower only charge 1 EQC levy & 1 Fire Service levy for a Home & Income type situation [ex granny flat] , whereas AMI charge 2. Each EQC levy is around $150.Fire Service Levy is around $75. Thats a saving of $225/annum. The downside is EQC will only pay out on the 1 levy cover , of up to around $120,000 in any event.

[ream]

The downside is EQC will only pay out on the 1 levy cover , of up to around $120,000 in any event.

Yep...$113,850 = $100k + GST less $1% excess

[Shane D]

mrsaneperson

Thanks for providing some details on the Tower H&I policy. With savings of potentially $225+ per property, it will be worthwhile to investigate further.

Shane

[Shoreman]

FYI its not up to Tower or any other insurer how much to charge for Eqc or fire service levies.

Quite simply, if the dwelling is divided into two legal dwellings, then there are two Eqc and fire service levies. If it isn't legally two dwellings you'll be fine.

One last point, it isn't up to the insurer to work this out - its the owners responsibility and the owner who will be charged extra if not enough levies etc ate paid.

[mrsaneperson]

FYI its not up to Tower or any other insurer how much to charge for Eqc or fire service levies.

Quite simply, if the dwelling is divided into two legal dwellings, then there are two Eqc and fire service levies. If it isn't legally two dwellings you'll be fine.

One last point, it isn't up to the insurer to work this out - its the owners responsibility and the owner who will be charged extra if not enough levies etc ate paid.

It depends on the insurer. I have several places where it is one physical building containing 2 dwellings. All legal . AMI's position is ,there are 2 EQC & Fire Service levys payable. Towers position is that if it is 2 dwellings contained in the 1 physical building,with one address only 1 EQC & Fire Service levy is applicable. Towers position if the dwellings are physically separate ,it will be deemed to be 2 EQC. I recently transferred all my policys over to Tower because they worked out cheaper & that was inpart due to the EQC/Fire Service levy charges.

Having twice rung EQC regarding the variation in charging amongst the insurers ,EQC's position was that it is up to each insurer.I suspect that part of the logic is that insurance is a voluntary undertaking ,unlike imposed land rates where council charge more for a property rated as 2 dwellings, even though as a 1 physical building entity the infrastructure impact is exactly the same .

If you are paying 2 EQC's then expect to have a greater payout in an event compared to having a policy with only the 1 EQC. On the other hand pay a much cheaper premium with only 1 EQC & Fire Service Levy.

[Shoreman]

It depends on the insurer. I have several places where it is one physical building containing 2 dwellings. All legal . AMI's position is ,there are 2 EQC & Fire Service levys payable. Towers position is that if it is 2 dwellings contained in the 1 physical building,with one address only 1 EQC & Fire Service levy is applicable. Towers position if the dwellings are physically separate ,it will be deemed to be 2 EQC. I recently transferred all my policys over to Tower because they worked out cheaper & that was inpart due to the EQC/Fire Service levy charges.

Having twice rung EQC regarding the variation in charging amongst the insurers ,EQC's position was that it is up to each insurer.I suspect that part of the logic is that insurance is a voluntary undertaking ,unlike imposed land rates where council charge more for a property rated as 2 dwellings, even though as a 1 physical building entity the infrastructure impact is exactly the same .

If you are paying 2 EQC's then expect to have a greater payout in an event compared to having a policy with only the 1 EQC. On the other hand pay a much cheaper premium with only 1 EQC & Fire Service Levy.

The only problem with this assertion is that under the act(s) it's the insured's responsibility to pay EQ levies and fire service levies. And in the event these aren't correct and in the unlikely event it's checked guess who pays? A clue, not the insurer.

[mrsaneperson]

I found out recently that the Tower sales person had incorrectly noted my policies as one dwelling only. However i assured Tower i had informed him there were 2 dwellings several times. They were able to run over the taped conversations & my assertions were proven correct. They have now had to insure me for the 2 dwellings at their single dwelling quoted price as it was their fault. My bill remains the same for now , but im guessing they will no doubt charge me extra next year.
There are so many unreliable people out there in all industries who assure you everything is correct then when one double checks ,often a boo boo is struck !

[NovInvestor]

Just purchased house insurance with AAI for my 7th rental, so AAI still do them.

[lissie]

I just a quote from ANZ/NBNZ which turns out to be Vero - given the good things people are saying about them I think I will go with them

[DazRaz]

http://insurancewatch.org.nz/docs/Gr...ember%2026.png

Vero not ranking that high in Christchurch.