So we have several rentals in addition to our primary residence, I'm doing a deep dive with my insurance lady and discovering what I'm actually insured for is much less than the market value of my houses. So I have two questions :
- is this OK? Her explanation was they take a range of say $125-$150 per square foot for the rebuild cost of that house and they obviously have me on the low-end. An example would be a house that I could probably sell for 275K but I'm only covered for 226K.
- The other question is, for each of these houses I have an additional 10% under "other structures". She told me this is for things that are detached from the house, however in a catastrophic event that would require rebuilding the house from scratch, she told me they would include this amount even if there's no detachment. So for the example above my $226,000 of coverage would now be 226,000 plus 22,600. Is that how this works? Even if that's the case how much should I increase my coverage to in this example for a house that I could sell for $275,000?
Any advice is appreciated, thanks
- is this OK? Her explanation was they take a range of say $125-$150 per square foot for the rebuild cost of that house and they obviously have me on the low-end. An example would be a house that I could probably sell for 275K but I'm only covered for 226K.
- The other question is, for each of these houses I have an additional 10% under "other structures". She told me this is for things that are detached from the house, however in a catastrophic event that would require rebuilding the house from scratch, she told me they would include this amount even if there's no detachment. So for the example above my $226,000 of coverage would now be 226,000 plus 22,600. Is that how this works? Even if that's the case how much should I increase my coverage to in this example for a house that I could sell for $275,000?
Any advice is appreciated, thanks