# BC Residents; Who are you using for Condo Insurance



## rl1983 (Jun 17, 2015)

I found a broker who covered $50K worth of items in my condo last year. This was for $250. It's renewal time so it's gone up to $300 because they have tacked on some BS coverage I don't need, that's covered by Strata ( external flood damage/gutter coverage ).

I've asked the broker to remove this as it just put up my policy $50 and they said it's baked into the agreement. 

I think this is unreasonable but what do others think?


----------



## heyjude (May 16, 2009)

I was with Capri Insurance (a broker) but this year I changed to BCAA and saved some money for similar coverage. 

It’s really important to have condo insurance for the things the strata insurance doesn’t cover, for example. The leak from your toilet that causes a flood downstairs!


----------



## Chica (Jan 19, 2016)

I use Capri. Found they have the best rates for just about everything including business insurance and travel insurance.

Ironically I've tried a couple of times to get insurance at BCAA (been a member since 1982) but they declined me in 1988 because I had two roommates and that's one too many for insurance. The 2nd time I tried my horses came up in the conversation. I got a rejection letter afterwards because BCAA accuses me running a horse business and they won't sell house insurance to scum like me. We're talking a couple of nice old horses, pleasure use, hit the trails on weekends. No one but me rides them. Occasionally a friend might ride with me but I have never charged anyone to join me on a trail ride. I've made several requests for clarification, but BCAA refuses to tell me what kind of horse business I'm running and how much money I make at it. I could sure use that money. Horses are expensive to keep! BCAA is unable to prove their strange allegations about this mysterious horse business I'm running. On the flip side, even if I did run a horse business, why would BCAA discriminate and refuse to sell me house insurance? It's not like the horses are clumping through the house or munching their way through the walls. I think BCAA policy is to stay away from us low-life horse owners. What really takes the cake is BCAA sending me out mailers to buy their home insurance and life insurance. Until I wrote an article about BCAA's accusations of my fictional horse business a few years ago and posted it on LinkedIn. A manager contacted me and had my name removed from their mailer.

Shop around. Capri had no problem insuring the house of a scumbag horse owner.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

I use td insurance but i have an alumni discount. I will check out capri if premiums go up. I find you definitely have to check what is covered, the deductible etc. Just because its cheaper doesn't make it better.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I would assume you are forced to have building insurance in BC - by law - paid via condo fees.

I'm guessing contents insurance is elective.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Chica,

Some of your comments about being declined insurance on account of an excess of roommates and due to a non-existent horse "business" sound a bit odd. Can you share the text of the letter that "accused" you of running a horse business? And did BCAA come out and call you "scum"? What did you say about horses, if anything, in your insurance application? 

In the end, BCAA does not have to "prove" anything. It can simply decline to accept the risk that it perceives, rightly or wrongly. Whether that's good business in the circumstances is another matter. 

As for why they might decline to write a homeowner's policy notwithstanding a horse business, whether what's at stake is a "business" or not, recognizing that you own horses might make 'em gun shy. Not because the horses might munch through the walls. More because most homeowner policies also offer some personal liability protection to the homeowner, both on and off the insured property. Should you own a horse that causes injury or damage to persons or property, the insurer might be called upon. Even if the claim asserted is one not likely to fall within policy coverage, if there's a small chance that a court will find coverage, then the insurer will be considered to have a "duty to defend" any lawsuit brought against you. That means that the insurer will have to retain and pay for a lawyer on your behalf. Owning a horse might strike the insurer as carrying too great a risk of exposure.

Many insurers will insure just about any risk if the premium charged reflects the risk. I suspect that BCAA lacks flexibility in that regard and cannot or will not write customized policies. It sounds as though you have found a broker who is willing to work with you to get appropriate coverage. 

It has long been the case that Lloyd's of London can be approached to underwrite where others fear to tread. That usually entails having your broker approach a surplus lines broker, who can seek coverage on your behalf from an excess and surplus lines insurer, including some of the E & S syndicates at Lloyd's. I know of someone in Ontario who, years ago, managed to have Lloyd's underwrite a policy insuring against the risk of fish in a stream suffering death by fire (it related to the fact that a portion of the stream where the fish lived was covered by a long wooden canopy type of structure that could burn and fall into the water). Probably BCAA would have relied on its "scumbag" defence to refuse get onboard with that one. Scumbag fish owner.

I am not sure it follows that all high-risk insureds are "scumbags" in the eyes of insurers or anyone else. Insurers often get antsy around folks who jump put of airplanes, engage in auto racing, scuba dive, operate amusement parks, daycares, etc. I would not be surprised that horse ownership is also seen as posing its own set of underwriting challenges. But I remain curious, just what did BCAA say that caused you to say that "they won't sell house insurance to scum like me"? If their correspondence was couched in that, or similar, language, I think others here might want to learn of it and keep it in mind when shopping for insurance. If BCAA called E.P. Taylor a "scumbag" to his face, they outta' be ashamed.

I live off grid, miles from any fire department. Some homeowner insurers don't like that. Even tho' in most house fires, just down the road from the firehall, by the time the fire reels get there, all that can be done is to save the adjacent houses and what does not burn is water damaged beyond repair. I have been denied coverage by some. Happily, they did not call me a scumbag. Now what they were thinking, I cannot be sure. I did not get mad. Just moved on.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I find tirades like that from Chica unhelpful. Per Mukhang, the risks an insurer is willing to take on varies between insurers. Some won't insure certain things period, or have premiums that are extraordinary. In our case, our only unusual liability is a pool and that is covered. Both our auto (beyond ICBC minimums) and home insurance is with BCAA based on them being most cost effective at that time. Have not looked at Capri or Johnson Meir (the latter is interior specific I think) in recent years.

I grew up with horses so know the significant liability they can represent should someone fall off, get bucked off, foot caught in stirrups, horse is spooked, etc. I carried hefty liability insurance on 160 acres of raw land I once owned for many years just in case some trespasser hurt himself doing something stupid. One might argue having tenants (room mates) also has liability risk. Never been in that situation personally.

MOA, the building insurance is provided via the strata corp. What we are talking about is contents insurance of the condo owner plus condo owner liabilities such as a break in plumbing flooding units below. Such breaks are not the strata corp's responsibility. Neither is smoke damage coming from one's unit, e.g. kitchen fire due to something burning on the stove. Too many condo owners don't recognize their responsibilities. In an investment townhouse I once owned, the bylaws required each condo owner to show they had proper contents insurance. Don't remember how they enforced those that refused.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> In an investment townhouse I once owned, the bylaws required each condo owner to show they had proper contents insurance. Don't remember how they enforced those that refused.


In BC, at least, enforcement of such a bylaw would not be difficult. 

From the BC Strata Property Act:

Fines
130 (1) The strata corporation may fine an owner if a bylaw or rule is contravened by

(a) the owner,

(b) a person who is visiting the owner or was admitted to the premises by the owner for social, business or family reasons or any other reason, or

(c) an occupant, if the strata lot is not rented by the owner to a tenant.


The BC Act does not allow the strata corp to file a lien against a unit owner's title to enforce payment of a fine. But it's not without some remedies. For an owner to complete a sale of a unit, a purchaser must present a "Certificate of Payment" to the Land Title office to register a new title. The strata corp can refuse the certificate if any fine is unpaid. As well, as is sometimes done, the strata corp can sue to recover judgment for the amount of the fine, then register its judgment (including interest and costs) against the owner's title.


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

My Own Advisor said:


> I would assume you are forced to have building insurance in BC - by law - paid via condo fees.
> 
> I'm guessing contents insurance is elective.


We have a small condo in a 33 suite ski condo. As suggested, the building is insured by the strata and of course this is paid by your monthly strata fees. Contents, etc are for your own account. Well, last summer 8 units were destroyed through fire and 10 others suffered some damage. No units were destroyed by the actual fire but from water and smoke damage. Everything was removed and destroyed from our unit and a number of others as there was asbestos in the drywall mud. A complete remediation was required with new wiring, plumbing insulation, drywall, furnace, HW tank, bathroom fixtures, flooring, cupboards, counters. Everything had to be rebuilt to the current building code which made it a horrendous job. Total cost to the building insurer was $3,000,000.00! Replacement cost for our contents was $40,000.00 and then there was loss of rental income and accommodation for ourselves last ski season. I'm not a fan of insurance but certainly glad we had it. One of the main drivers for our having insurance was for the liability. Hope to be back in before the end of the year.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Mukhang pera said:


> In BC, at least, enforcement of such a bylaw would not be difficult.


Fairly typical I think in various provinces, but still makes it costly for a strata corp to collect from a stubborn strata owner who refuses to abide by the bylaws. IOW, taking legal action can be costly, albeit change of ownership obviously is the 'gotcha' moment. I know that for the townhouse I owned in Alberta, the strata corp often asked for proof of insurance which I supplied as required, but what about those skating on thin ice going without?


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> Fairly typical I think in various provinces, but still makes it costly for a strata corp to collect from a stubborn strata owner who refuses to abide by the bylaws. IOW, taking legal action can be costly, albeit change of ownership obviously is the 'gotcha' moment. I know that for the townhouse I owned in Alberta, the strata corp often asked for proof of insurance which I supplied as required, but what about those skating on thin ice going without?


Agreed, although going to Small Claims Court can be done relatively quickly and inexpensively. But from what I have seen, most strata corps just hide in the weeds when seeking payment of fines, waiting for that 'gotcha' moment when the miscreant owner wants to sell. Then they will issue the Certificate of Payment, either on being paid up front or in exchange for the vendor's lawyer's undertaking to pay the strata corp the unpaid fines out of the sale proceeds. However, if the strata corp is concerned about the thin ice skaters going without proper insurance, if met with resistance, it will either have to put some effort (and money) into enforcement or be content to simply levy fines and wait.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Regarding Chica's rant, I suspect that the real issue is that the Insurance company views his property as a hobby farm with livestock (2 horses). See this page from Cooperators for example: https://www.cooperators.ca/en/insurance/farm/hobby-farm.aspx

That puts his property in a different underwriting category from a simple residence.

The number of tenants might also be an issue - I believe you are normally supposed to advise your insurer if you have tenants because it may affect coverage. Underwriting rates for residences are based on owner-occupied premises. If you add tenants you have more people at risk, who may also sue you for damages. And you are exposed to that liability 24 hrs/day, 365 days year. Statistically, this is greater exposure than the occasional visitor. So of course it may affect insurance coverage.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Well that gets me thinking. We have livestock - 9 hens and a rooster, plus some eggs about to hatch. We sell a few free range eggs to neighbours now and again. Maybe we are hobby farmers and into a whole new risk category - scumbag poultry farmers. I'd better call my agent.


----------



## Chica (Jan 19, 2016)

Just to clarify - BCAA never called me a scumbag. That's just my take on their perception of me. Nowhere in the application was there a question about horses. I had that conversation with the woman when I went into BCAA, probably said something that I was going out to feed my horses after leaving there. I owned a townhouse at the time and was shopping around for insurance. My horses don't live on the same property I do. I board them at a farm and they've been at the same place for years, about a 15 minute drive from that townhouse. Anyway, Capri offered the best rate for insuring the townhouse, their strata package insured the contents. At the time they offered better coverage and came in about $100 less than the company I had been using. 

BCAA sent me a letter saying I was declined because I owned a horse business which just left me flabbergasted. At no time in conversation did I suggest I owned a horse business or make any money off the horses. BCAA was very specific the horses were the reason they declined selling me strata insurance. If BCAA just said sorry we declined you, that would have been just forget it and move on, but they were very clear about being declined was because I owned a horse business. I don't even know what kind of horse business, BCAA wouldn't clarify. There's all kinds of different horse businesses, none that I've ever owned. I really feel BCAA discriminated against me. Whether its because I'm a horse owner or because I own a fictional horse business. BCAA didn't want nothing to do with insuring my townhouse, and when I went to Capri I did ask them if owning horses was a strike against me getting insurance with them, and it was not.


----------



## rl1983 (Jun 17, 2015)

Thanks for the replies. I decided on paying the $300 as it seemed like the cheapest option out there. Plus my time had run out. I know for next year to start shopping early and see what's out there.


----------

