Home Insurance-Unemployed Need Not Apply!

LadFromLimerick

Hi All,
I own a property which I rent out. The insurance company I have been with for a number of years (claims free) have just refused to renew my home insurance policy because the tenants are not in full time employment. They claim the underwriters would not cover the policy. I'm disgusted with this, especially in the current economic climate! Why would someone not in full time employment be any more of an insurance risk than someone who is?
I contacted the financial ombudsman who put me on to the Irish Insurance Federation who put me on to the underwriter who put me back on to the insurance broker, where do I go next?
Many Thanks.

seamus

LadFromLimerick wrote: »

Why would someone not in full time employment be any more of an insurance risk than someone who is?

On a purely statistical footing, someone who is not working is seen as a greater risk to the property because they are less likely to treat it with respect.
It could be considered snobbery, but it's just bare statistics. Unfortunately unemployed people are lumped in with the bottom-feeders who do treat properties like crap. Working professionals are on the whole more likely to look after your property.

There's also an issue that the property is under heavier use than one occupied by employed people. If someone is there all day, they stand a greater chance of getting into an accident and causing damage to the structure or a fire, or whatever.
If the property is vacant for 8 hours of the day, there's less chance of something occuring. Except burglary, but as landlord that doesn't affect your insurance too much.

LadFromLimerick

Thanks Seamus,
Could you not make the same arguement for stay at home parents though? They spend most of their day in the house but the insurance company does not refuse to cover them. The arguement that unemployed people have less respect for their property doesn't hold much water with me either to be honest.
I'm pretty outraged by this, do I tell my tenants that, on top of losing their jobs, they also now face eviction because I can't insure the house with them in it. Seriously, what sort of country are we living in!
Sorry, rant over for now!

Otis Driftwood

Never heard of that before and I worked for one insurer directly for 20 months and have been in a large brokers for almost a year.Very strange indeed.

Can I ask who the company is?

LadFromLimerick

Unsure what the moderators view would be on me naming the company?

But their website clearly states a number of assumptions including:

You are only eligible for a quote and cover if:
If the home is Let, the term of the lease is at least 6 months and the leaseholder is in full time employment or is a parent caring for children on a full time basis

peteb2

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Never heard of that before and I worked for one insurer directly for 20 months and have been in a large brokers for almost a year.Very strange indeed.

Can I ask who the company is?

Have to say I've seen that a number of times. And more so lately!

Otis Driftwood

I must check it out when I get back to work next week.I deal with the majority of the big companies like Aviva,Zurich,Axa etc daily,and used to work for FBD and never have I heard of that stipulation.