Interested in whether forum members tend to "over" or "under"- insure the "sum insured" amount for their IP building insurance. I'm with Terri Scheer, and for an IP where I have the building sum insured amount as $515K, my annual premium is $1,465. That is a reasonably significant ongoing, recurring expense, and so I spoke to them today to enquire further. If I reduce my building sum insured amount to $300K, then my insurance premium reduced to $1025. It is not easy to estimate accurately, but I would think the $515K is the more reasonable cost of "replacing" the entire brick veneer 2-storey house should it burn down completely. However, I figure that I could take a calculated risk and knowingly under-insure. Even if a major event, such as a storm that damages the entire roof or flooding that damages the timber floors - the repair bill would still be easily covered by $300K. I'm thinking that the only risk of under insuring is if the whole house is damaged and needs to be re-built. Interested in the approach and logic the experienced forum members have with regard to this. The IPs that I'm talking about are located in family friendly, reasonably safe middle ring - and so the tenant quality is reasonable. If you have several IPs, then these annual premiums do all add up. Counter argument is not worth risking saving few hundred dollars premium to risk being unable to replace an entire house building in the event of a rare catastrophic event.