The cheapest House content insurance

grumbler

outtatune said:

When the annual warranty for a cooker is 20% of the cost of a new one, that's an insurance policy that's not worth having.

When the annual buildings + contents insurance for a house is 0.1% of the cost of a new one, things are different.

You have a point, but THESE figures don't prove it.

• rebuild cost of a house is typically much lower than the market price
• probability of a house suffering really serious damage or the full content being lost is much lower than of an appliance breaking down, especially a modern one. Insuring a house with subsidence or exposed to floods is much more expensive if possible at all.
  

I don't think that extended warranty companies have much bigger profit margin than building and content insurers.

GDB2222

grumbler said:

outtatune said:

When the annual warranty for a cooker is 20% of the cost of a new one, that's an insurance policy that's not worth having.

When the annual buildings + contents insurance for a house is 0.1% of the cost of a new one, things are different.

You have a point, but THESE figures don't prove it.

• rebuild cost of a house is typically much lower than the market price
• probability of a house suffering really serious damage or the full content being lost is much lower than of an appliance breaking down, especially a modern one. Insuring a house with subsidence or exposed to floods is much more expensive if possible at all.
  

I don't think that extended warranty companies have much bigger profit margin than building and content insurers.

That BiB is probably wrong. Some insurances are 20-40% risk premium and the rest commission. Commission on house insurance is much lower.

Glad

the OP hasn't come back and answered any questions yet but always worth reading through the MSE Home Insurance article on the main site 
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/insurance/home-insurance/

Sandtree

grumbler said:

outtatune said:

When the annual warranty for a cooker is 20% of the cost of a new one, that's an insurance policy that's not worth having.

When the annual buildings + contents insurance for a house is 0.1% of the cost of a new one, things are different.

You have a point, but THESE figures don't prove it.

• rebuild cost of a house is typically much lower than the market price
• probability of a house suffering really serious damage or the full content being lost is much lower than of an appliance breaking down, especially a modern one. Insuring a house with subsidence or exposed to floods is much more expensive if possible at all.
  

I don't think that extended warranty companies have much bigger profit margin than building and content insurers.

Rebuild -v- value is highly regionally variable... sure I would agree that overall the average rebuild is lower than the resell value but "much"? Not sure and there are some areas where the opposite is very much true. 

A run down 10 bedroom, 5 reception room house (listed building) was sold for £500k... clearly would cost vastly more to build... was resold a decade later after refurbishment and was sold for £1.9m... probably significantly less to build.

Extended warranties are not insurance and so profitability is not 100% comparable due to the difference in need for capital etc. Results also tend to be much more level whereas Home insurers can have a couple of years of good profits and then a catastrophic storm that wipes all that out.

Bendy_House

grumbler said:

GDB2222 said:

grumbler said:

Brie said:

£55 a month means £670 a year?!

Before I reached your post I though it was per year, not per month!

I remember times when my building and contents was almost free after TCB/Quidco cashback. Now it's about £100 p.a., I am mortgage-free and I decided not to have it.

If your house burns down, where will you live?

We saved enough money to be able to repair it or buy a new one. ATM we are in the process of buying a second house with plans to rent our old one out.

Have you saved enough money to cover public liability too, in that admittedly equally unlikely event?

You are still 'saving' yourself circa ~£150 pa even tho' you've had the direct experience of the type of major loss it covers? 

JustN43

I am overwhelmed with so many responses. Clearly a popular subject. I need content insurance not to pay for expensive things if damaged but have protection for leaking boiler and if I flood neighbours then I will be covered too.

grumbler

Bendy_House said:

grumbler said:

GDB2222 said:

grumbler said:

Brie said:

£55 a month means £670 a year?!

Before I reached your post I though it was per year, not per month!

I remember times when my building and contents was almost free after TCB/Quidco cashback. Now it's about £100 p.a., I am mortgage-free and I decided not to have it.

If your house burns down, where will you live?

We saved enough money to be able to repair it or buy a new one. ATM we are in the process of buying a second house with plans to rent our old one out.

Have you saved enough money to cover public liability too, in that admittedly equally unlikely event?

Even for houses there are some very unlikely events that insurances don't cover. And even cyclist are allowed to ride their bikes without any insurance. Are you insured against every possible eventuality in your life?

Bendy_House

grumbler said:

Have you saved enough money to cover public liability too, in that admittedly equally unlikely event?

Even for houses there are some very unlikely events that insurances don't cover. And even cyclist are allowed to ride their bikes without any insurance. Are you insured against every possible eventuality in your life?

No, I'm not. But, if my house burned down, we'd be well and truly stuffed. For us, insurance - at around £140 pa (YES, INCLUDING LP!!!) - is a no-brainer. £140 per annum is so little that it isn't noticed. 3 houses on, we have never made a claim. But I'd still never be without it.

The risk may be minimal, but the consequences huge - life-changing. They would be for me, but seemingly not for you.

If your personal financial circumstances had not as fortunate as they appear to have been - ie if, instead, you'd been rendered homeless after that fire, relying on rental for the foreseeable future, with no savings and little chance of earning enough to build a replacement for a decade or more - would you still have been chuffed at your £150pa saving?

GDB2222

TELLIT01 said:

Many people do underestimate the replacement cost of items and ignore things like CDs and DVDs.  The value of those can quickly add up and if not priced accurately can lead to reduced payout in the event of a fire, for example.

Absolutely agree. A lot of people have new for old insurance. So, the CDs may get valued for claim purposes at the new price, even though you may have got them for 50p in the charity shop. Then, you turn out to be underinsured and the claim gets averaged down. 

Sandtree

JustN43 said:

I am overwhelmed with so many responses. Clearly a popular subject. I need content insurance not to pay for expensive things if damaged but have protection for leaking boiler and if I flood neighbours then I will be covered too.

The scenario mentioned would be covered by Buildings insurance not Contents... both policies types have a public liability component, the former covers you as the "owner" of the property where as the later as the "occupier". A boiler is considered part of the property and so covered by Buildings.

In reality a leaking boiler almost certainly would create no liability unless it can be shown that you have known its leaking and failed to do anything about it within a reasonable timeframe. That said, having someone to fight your corner can also be helpful even if the end result is no payout.