Agreed, this seems to be more political posturing than a practical insurance ruling.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that a carrier could use the Neglect Exclusion to deny a Section I loss – if the home was deemed vacant for more than 30-days prior to loss – but I’m not sure about a Section II claim. In other words, even if a carrier were mandated to stay on a vacant home they probably would only pay a third party claim. But still this decision is problematic. I wonder if this is more about non-renewing (on the 3rd year anniversary of course) or midterm cancellations?
Interesting that the Ins. Dept. is essentially asking the carriers to cover homes that would not clear initial underwriting.
There is a huge difference between a vacant building or an unoccupied building. Unoccupied is not reason for cancellation. I believe that vacant is a signifcant change is risk and does constitute grounds for cancellation.
Since NY will have a race for a new governor perhaps the DOI superintendant should take on insurance copanies and their blanket cancellations solely because you are close to a body of water. By close I am refering to homes being cancelled because you are 1 mile from a bay not the Atlantic Ocean.
This should be a key concern of the DOI. That would really ensure your getting into the govenors seat.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Agreed, this seems to be more political posturing than a practical insurance ruling.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that a carrier could use the Neglect Exclusion to deny a Section I loss – if the home was deemed vacant for more than 30-days prior to loss – but I’m not sure about a Section II claim. In other words, even if a carrier were mandated to stay on a vacant home they probably would only pay a third party claim. But still this decision is problematic. I wonder if this is more about non-renewing (on the 3rd year anniversary of course) or midterm cancellations?
Interesting that the Ins. Dept. is essentially asking the carriers to cover homes that would not clear initial underwriting.
Thanks, found it and it is very clear that it pertains to mid-term cancellations.
Thanks, found it and it is very clear that it pertains to mid-term cancellations.
There is a huge difference between a vacant building or an unoccupied building. Unoccupied is not reason for cancellation. I believe that vacant is a signifcant change is risk and does constitute grounds for cancellation.
Since NY will have a race for a new governor perhaps the DOI superintendant should take on insurance copanies and their blanket cancellations solely because you are close to a body of water. By close I am refering to homes being cancelled because you are 1 mile from a bay not the Atlantic Ocean.
This should be a key concern of the DOI. That would really ensure your getting into the govenors seat.