Landlord insurance: Property Insurance Plus - anyone using them?

Hi guys,

So recently our PM has reached out as the renewal on our landlord insurance is due.
We have been with Terri Scheer for some time and have not had to make a claim so far, so don't know how good/bad they are to deal with.

PM recommended the switch as apparently Terri Scheer has changed their policy regarding floorboards to cover them only up to $2K of damage/ replacement. Plus they are about $80 cheaper.

Wondering if anyone has heard from them or uses them? Their website is pretty useless, so not exactly filling me with confidence here. Anyone has lodged a claim with them? How did it go?

Thanks for the feedback

Cheers

 

I am also interested in your topic. I am choosing bw Terri Scheer and EBM atm (EBM recommended by property investment friends, and also some people on property chat)...trying to work out the differences in policies atm...

 

I would be interested to know the diff as well.

I am with TS at the moment only because its the most talked about one. But would like to know the real diff.

 

They're pretty popular in SA - ebm doesn't have as much market share here. I haven't used them to know what they're like though. Most of my clients and my personal investments are with ebm.

 

I have both.EBM and TS.I have claimed with EBM before and all went well. @Xenia inherited a property recently from me that had been trashed,that property is with EBM.Going through the process now.

 

I know a lot of people using PIP. I personally haven't lodged a claim with them, but Sam is the manager here in Melbourne and she's always been quite useful. I know they're a newer policy trying to go up against TS and EBM.

From the ones I know I haven't heard anything bad, claims reasonably smooth. Cheaper and from memory they cover longer rent default terms.

 

Thanks for the replies everyone, good to hear from you all.
I think we might give them a go.
After doing a quick search on the forum, I noticed @Xenia mentionned using them a couple times, perhaps if she sees this, she could chip in with her experience.

 

I have just been reviewing policies and looked over the PIP policy. In some ways the cover is good, price even better. However the downside is that it basically only covers "damage" claims if a result of ACCIDENTAL damage, malicious damage by TENANT, or attempted theft by TENANT.

In other words, if a couple of drunken kids walking down the street on a Saturday night decide to do a bit of vandalism, or arson (even if it did not start out that way) you don't have cover. That means building, contents, and loss of rent.

Most building policies are a listed event policy, ie fire, storm, impact etc. In such policies fire is covered in most situations. The PIP policy is more of an accidental damage policy with exclusions.

I sometimes wonder who writes these policies, as some basic cover is overlooked yet covering finer benefits which the basic policies don't. I suspect an oversight in at least some cases.

If only you could take the best of all policies and combine. The specialist policies leave a lot to be desired, they may cover more things but in doing so add more exclusions so as not to cover things they did not intend to, but in doing that exclude things which would not otherwise have been excluded!! Add 10 more benefits, but add 15 more exclusions.

I replied to PIP after getting a quote to question their lack of basic cover but got no reply. For those with PIP insurance - read your cover!

 

I will be brutally honest. When I first read this post I was ready to jump to the defence of a competitor product and say that you had misinterpreted their policy. Having then checked what I could find in the way of Product Disclosure Statement etc. I have to admit I am more than a little intrigued, and would be interested to know where the policy covers defined events (as you have referred to) such as fire, storm, water damage etc. Pretty much the risks you would expect are the fundamental components of this type of policy? Surely we are missing something.

 

Before I think that through, take for example a strata unit, this wouldn't appear to cover your landlords "contents" being carpets, curtains, blinds, etc. for defined events. I really need to look more closely but something isn't adding up.

 

See attached PDS and fact sheets. Not the hardest to read and interpret - other than contents cover.

Contents - the Building policy benefits fact sheet states cover for 10% of Building SI, Landlords fact sheet indicates $60000. This infers cover at two different levels depending on whether you have Building policy or Landlords. Fair enough! These are two separate insurances and premiums. There does not appear to be separate Contents insurance other than covered as above, and none was offered when I requested a quote indicating I only needed about $3000 for carpets and curtains etc.

However The PDS contradicts above Contents cover on fact sheets by stating accidental loss and damage by tenants is covered to the SI on your schedule, no mention of cover under Buildings SI or Landlords. The PDS lays out the conditions of cover, not fact sheets, however this would be fuel for debate if a claim was denied as misleading.

As I got no response to my return email pointing out the inadequacies of their cover I can only assume the inadequacies were not an oversight - although an inexperienced/couldn't care less staff member may not have bothered to refer my email to a senior person/underwriter for confirmation on intention of cover and possibly corrections.

 

Comparing the product description between PIP and EBM-RentCover, they seem to be the same, unless I'm missing anything. Seems like all landlord insurance don't cover the "Drunken kids" scenario, which is why I think we need both building insurance and landlord insurance. What do you think?

 

Why do you not think that would be covered under RentCover? Under various sections RentCover clearly covers "malicious acts" and clearly covers "Fire". Without going right back through this thread I recall the writer/s could simply find no reference to a range of risks being covered under the PIP policy, unless they were specifically tenant-related. This is clearly not the case with RentCover where there is a wide range of "defined events" detailed.

Where this is certainly a need for both "landlord insurance" and "building insurance" is where you are insuring a single dwelling such as a house, but that is simply to extend those defined events to the building structure for a house whereas they are likely to be covered bu the Body Corporate / Owners Corporation for a strata titled property.