5 ms·

They don't have to, if they don't feel they need insurance.

• kgwxd 3y ago
  Isn’t it usually required if you have a mortgage?
  • toast0 3y ago
    I can't remember the specific terms of my mortgage, but as I recall, the first level was 'you must have home insurance with certain parameters including having us as a named insured, etc; if you don't, we will obtain home insurance at your expense'. But I don't know what the recourse is if home insurance is unobtainable. Certainly, it would be a lot harder to get a new mortgage underwritten, which makes refinancing mostly impossible and makes selling difficult. Given that the property would be difficult to sell, I'd imagine even if the contract allows it, lenders wouldn't foreclose for lack of insurance if insurance is unavailable. Really, I think the way to move forward on the issue that so many homes are built in areas they shouldn't be is to make available insurance policies that cover permanent relocation, rather than rebuilding in place. You can still live there until it burns down, at which time, you must move elsewhere and the lot is deemed unbuildable for the forseable future. With some sort of provision to manage windfalls from changes in conditions allowing safe construction in the future. (It's not fair if you force people out, but ten or twenty years later, let people in again; OTOH, maybe one hundred years later, it will make sense?)
    • bdowling 3y ago
      > But I don't know what the recourse is if home insurance is unobtainable. The recourse is usually foreclosure when the borrower doesn’t meet the essential terms of the mortgage agreement. It doesn’t matter why the borrower can’t get insurance any more than it would matter why the borrower couldn't make payments on the loan.
      • prepend 3y ago
        For my mortgage the terms are that the bank acquires insurance and charges me, not that they are allowed to foreclose.
• Schnitz 3y ago
  They have mortgages that require them to have insurance.