Land Contract & Insurance

Hello Everyone,

I'm about to negotiate a land contract deal. I will cash out the sellers in about 2 years. How should the homeowner's insurance be structured to keep me protected and the seller's mortgage lender happy?

Amelia :-?

Comments(7)

  • myfrogger13th May, 2004

    My first (and last) land contract we both carried insurance actually. I'm sure that norrist would say that wasn't the correct thing to do though.

  • Amelia85713th May, 2004

    Does that mean you had two separate policies?

    Amelia

  • Stockpro9913th May, 2004

    Actually double policies is not a bad idea. Or..... Put the property into a land trust and get one policy.
    [addsig]

  • Amelia85714th May, 2004

    The more I read about land trusts, the more I find that they are really wonderful things! LOL

    Amelia

  • norrist14th May, 2004

    Frogger, you make me sound like the "insurance police" hahaha
    All joking aside, one concern of carrying 2 policies on the same property is that most policies have "excess" clauses. In other words, the policy will pay only excess amounts, if any other policy exists. If each of the 2 policies have such a clause it will create havoc in getting a loss paid...

  • Amelia85714th May, 2004

    Norrist,

    I thought this could be a problem with a double policy. One insurance company could point to the other company's policy, then both refuse to pay. What do you recommend?

    Amelia

  • norrist14th May, 2004

    The property, since it is now, I assume, not "owner-occupied" needs to be written on a "landlord" type policy. 2 options:

    1. You insure it as the 1st named insured and name the "owner" as an additional insured and loss payee (almost as if they are the mortgage company...for that matter they may be, if owner-financed).

    2. The owner needs to have the property re-written on a "landlord" policy. They would be the 1st named insured, and you would need to be at least an additional insured (for liability protection benefit). If you have any vested interest (such as rehab value) you should also be a "loss payee", for at least your vested value in the property.

    I prefer option 1 as you are the primary policy beneficiary. If the roles were reversed (you are the lessee/property owner) I would also recommend option 1, for the same reasons.

    Though the article link here pertains to the sub2 scenario, it may help:

    http://www.thecreativeinvestor.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&articleid=472

    Best regards,

    Tim[ Edited by norrist on Date 05/14/2004 ]

Add Comment

Login To Comment