separate hazard and liability policies? - Posted by firefox

Posted by JT-IN on October 29, 2003 at 07:40:12:

FF:

Yes, we do this very thing all the time. Primarily due to vacant houses, which are insured via one company, and the liability is carried with another carrier. Occupied properties are insured within the same carrieer.

Banks typically want to that the structure is covered for damage, and less concerned over the liability issue. Doesn’t make a lot of sense, but I think they simply assume you will have liability coverage… Besides, if a huge claim is made, and the benefactor of the claim attempts to move on your assets, the Lender is secured with a Mtg or Deed of Trust, and all such claims are subordinated to them and Taxes… So not much risk to a Lender in this instance… in reality.

JT-IN

separate hazard and liability policies? - Posted by firefox

Posted by firefox on October 29, 2003 at 04:26:51:

I assume (!) that the bank only cares about getting paid off if the house is damaged. Can one have separate hazard and liability policies, the former paid through escrow to keep the bank happy and the latter billed normally (to keep me happy)? Is this normally only seen in commercial policies (lessor responsible for structure, lessee responsible for liability)?