We haven't explored other options since the denial to continue coverage just came today.
The situation is that my wife cares for her mother's stand-alone house (her mother is 96, in a care home, and hasn't lived there for a number of years). We're about a five minute drive from there, and getting there is also a pleasant enough walk.
In any definition, nobody is living there, and this is the reason for denial to renew coverage. But my wife tutors online, submits the blue form, and as a part of that writes off some of the expenses there as a part of her 'business' (I'm not sure what, and how much I think internet, maybe some utilities?). And she goes there days for a change of place more often than she probably guesstimated for the insurance company's questions (to escape from me, heh, we're retirees–a room of one's own, which I can completety sympathize with).
Some weeks she's only there a couple times a week, other times (recently) she and her sister have been doing some wallpaper work–so 4-5 times/week. (And we realize that's not equal to living there, but also not completely unwatched.)
Are 'empty' houses uninsurable? The insurance company (used for some years now) stated that since it's nobody is living there that they cannot continue coverage. Should she just try some other companies? if she's upfront that it's not a residence, can anyone advise how that might affect rates/quotes from other possible insurers?
Instead of a residence, I wondered whether it could be insured as her place of business–would some alternative like that be possible, and are those rates reasonable or perhaps much higher?
The house is old, so perhaps it's just land value at this point, but OTOH it's much newer than what we live in–and we carry insurance. There are no contents of value (furnishings/possessions), all that was cleared out years ago. But it's a pretty solid structure, not dilapidated at all.
Ideas or suggestions?
by upachimneydown