Exchanged = Insurance Required

silvercar

barnaby-bear wrote:

Our solicitor struck the insure at exchange out of contract. He said it was meaningless while we were obliged to complete the vendor was obliged to hand over house in condition at exchange - so if it burned down they'd be obliged to sort it out not us. If at exchange the house is burned down you don't have to complete because not in condition at exchange. Also it is impossible to meet insurance company conditions of care for other people living there. Think about it unless you have a rental-like contract forbidding smoking with the vendor how can you a non-smoker insure a house and be covered by someone else's kids surreptitious fag burning the place down.
He did also insist on some binding that the vendors continued their insurance though.

I understood the exact opposite. If the house burns down between exchange and completion you are still obliged to complete. The only exception is new builds where you would be presenting the builder with a pretty long snagging list.

barnaby-bear

silvercar wrote:

I understood the exact opposite. If the house burns down between exchange and completion you are still obliged to complete. The only exception is new builds where you would be presenting the builder with a pretty long snagging list.

And most of the stuff on the internet agrees with you - I know our contract was subject to the property being in the same state as at exchange and solicitor struck clause out as we didn't already have a policy to transfer.

dunstonh

Insurance doesnt get discussed much in here because there is an insurance forum.

Many household plans have change of address cover built into them. This includes cover specific to removal firms as well as covering the period of exchange/completion.

Exchange of contracts is the traditional date to put cover in place just to be on the safe side. We are only talking a week or two nowadays so its no big deal from a cost point of view.

mattyh

We exchanged on a new build in March, and both mortgage advisor and mortgage company both insisted on *life* insurance adequate to cover the new property, but not buildings

housebuyer_3

Seems like a grey area - I have been led to believe insurance is not needed until the day of completion when you own and are liable for the house. It also makes sense that if something happened between exchange and completion that the seller would have to fix it so condition of property is same as at exchange (concerning major damage like flood/fire).

Of course insurance is just that, cover just in case, so if you are worried about the house not being covered by the present owner or something happening, then you could always take out buildings cover for them/yourself!

I'm also told by a friend in insurance that you can claim money back of you are double-insured!