Confusion about un-occupancy notification clause for home insurance

[tomdublin]

I'm confused by my home insurance policy document:

1) There's a section that lists certain exclusions if the home is unoccupied for more than 30 days. Fire is *not* listed as an exclusion, which suggests that even if the house has been vacant for over 30 days fire damage would still be covered.

2) But later in the document, there's a clause requiring clients to inform the insurer once the home has been unoccupied for 30 days. It's stated that this is so they can reassess the risk and possibly adjust the policy (with additional charges).

So my question is this: If fire protection is all I want, will this continue past 30 days even if I don't inform the insurer of my absence? Clause 1 above suggests that it does while 2 makes it ambiguous. Does anyone have any insight into this?
Thanks!

 

[Leo]

If you fail to comply with their requirement to notify them, they are entitled to refuse all cover and cancel the policy.

 

[tomdublin]

OK so since fire protection is not among the items excluded from cover if the property is vacant over 30 days, can I refuse them reassessing the other aspects of the policy upon notification and insist that the policy continue as is without additional cost (with only fire damage covered during my absence)? Does someone have any experience doing this?

 

[Ravima]

Alas, Insurer (in the words of Pres Trump), holds all the cards!

Most home insurers restrict cover to FIRE only if house is unoccupied for more than 30 days. However, if house is long term vacant, then they may put further restrictions/warranties/conditions on the policy, if indeed they will cover it at all.

As Leo has said, you do not want to be in the position, in the event of a claim, where indemnity is repudiated and all you get is the refund of premium paid!