Building and Contents - separate or combined?

qbazdz

Hi All,

From your experiences, is it cheaper to have building and contents insurance from the same company?

We have 2 years no claims on our contents and this would be the first building insurance we need to take so I don't know if I should split it or not...

Thanks!

stator

Almost always cheaper combined. Buildings insurance is usually cheap and so the admin cost of a separate policy would be large.

Many insurers will ask you how long you've had buildings insurance and how long you've had contents insurance, how many years claim free for each. So you should still get a discount for not claiming on your contents.

dacouch

It's often cheaper to separate them however Insurers prefer customer who insure both building and contents with them as they tend to remain more loyal than a customer that just covers buildings or contents with them.

The disadvantages of having them separate are that sometimes there can be issues as whether part of your claim is covered by building or contents so it could end up not being paid. You also have the hassle of dealing with two different insurers which can be a pain on a large claim. In addition you end up paying an excess to two different insurers for a claim encompassing both building and contents. If you have a combined policy with a proper Insurer eg not a cheap and cheerful company you generally just pay one excess so it can save you money.

SailorSam

I've only got building insurance. No contents.

jonesMUFCforever

SailorSam wrote: »

I've only got building insurance. No contents.

You must be rich then.
You can obviously afford to replace all your belongings in the event of a fire, flood, explosion, etc etc - I wish I was in your boat.

stator

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

You must be rich then.
You can obviously afford to replace all your belongings in the event of a fire, flood, explosion, etc etc - I wish I was in your boat.

In a boat you also have to consider sinking insurance

InsideInsurance

Its variable. Often combined is cheaper and makes life easier in the event of a claim that hits both buildings and contents.

Certainly if you have a modest house but have top of the range AV & computers, a safe full of Cartier jewelry etc then combined is likely to be expensive as you could want run of the mill buildings cover but high end contents where as combined policies are typically of equal quality on both halves.

There is a risk with splitting it that you may end up with arguments if things like carpets/ laminate flooring, secondary built in wardrobes etc are contents or buildings with the two separate insurers saying the other is responsible.

*Scarlett

It can be cheaper to have them separately - mainstream brokers will do that anyway.

But also insurers will normally apply a bit of discount onto a combined policy.

You need to get few quotes to see where you stand -on a combined quote they will normally give you a separate figure for b& c.

kingstreet

One broker provider/administrator will give the same NCD for both even if you've only had cover for one previously, or if the NCD for one is higher than the other.