Home insurance without contents cover

ligertigon

Doesn't seem to exist? or does it?

Mrs OBumble

Why would it? I'm struggling to think of any completed house that would not have at least some contents in it (flooring, sinks). And before that it would be insured as a building site, surely?

ligertigon

I only require rebuild cover.

To Elland Back

It is readily available with most insurers. Don't know about online though. As someone else said, you're bound to have some contents worth covering and a combined policy may be cheaper

To Elland Back

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Why would it? I'm struggling to think of any completed house that would not have at least some contents in it (flooring, sinks).?

Flooring and sinks would form Buildings, not Contents. A layman's definition of Contents would be; "Anything you could, but not necessarily would, take with you when you move,"

Examples
A built in wardrobe is Buildings, a free standing wardrobe is Contents
A timber floor is Buildings, a carpet is Contents

coylemj

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Why would it? I'm struggling to think of any completed house that would not have at least some contents in it (flooring, sinks). And before that it would be insured as a building site, surely?

OP did not say his house is empty, he simply doesn't want to be forced to pay for €25,000 or more cover if the value of the contents come nowhere near that number.

When you get a quote online, all of the insurance companies force you to include contents cover which for a lot of people is more than they need, especially if they have just bought a house, have no cash and have the place furnished with 'hand me down' beds and chairs from friends and family, usually items which the donors do not want returned. In such cases it's perfectly understandable for someone to want building only insurance.

If this is a case of an unfurnished house which is to let, OP will need landlord's insurance and the tenant can insure their contents.

ligertigon

coylemj wrote: »

OP did not say his house is empty, he simply doesn't want to be forced to pay for €25,000 or more cover if the value of the contents come nowhere near that number.

When you get a quote online, all of the insurance companies force you to include contents cover which for a lot of people is more than they need, especially if they have just bought a house, have no cash and have the place furnished with 'hand me down' beds and chairs from friends and family, usually items which the donors do not want returned. In such cases it's perfectly understandable for someone to want building only insurance.

If this is a case of an unfurnished house which is to let, OP will need landlord's insurance and the tenant can insure their contents.

exactly.
I'm no actuary. but the odds of a house needing rebuilt/repaired versus contents being damaged/stolen ...is very low. (i am familiar with expected gain principles etc)

Hence I assumed the majority of the quote was really for contents.

MugMugs

ligertigon wrote: »

exactly.
I'm no actuary. but the odds of a house needing rebuilt/repaired versus contents being damaged/stolen ...is very low. (i am familiar with expected gain principles etc)

Hence I assumed the majority of the quote was really for contents.

If your property is unfurnished I presume it's vacant. Conditions are quite common demanding occupancy within a certain time period in most insurance policies for an indemnity to be granted. Beware.

ligertigon

MugMugs wrote: »

If your property is unfurnished I presume it's vacant. Conditions are quite common demanding occupancy within a certain time period in most insurance policies for an indemnity to be granted. Beware.

Yes thanks. I am aware of the unoccupancy clause. I just don't own anything worth insuring within. Nothing I'd be worried about losing

NUTLEY BOY

Don't forget about those other contingencies covered under the contents section that might be of use like liability cover and so on.

Would it be a false economy to just cover buildings only ?