Are there places where on earth the towns require you to maintain insurance? Of course, if you have a catastrophe, you would own to fund it with your own money..
Answers: No, zilch happens. I've never hear of a law that requires homeowners insurance.
If the house burns down, nil happens. If it get broken into, nothing happen. If someone gets hurt on your property - YOU write the check.
I imagine it's STUPID to not have homeowners insurance - not from the property point of judgment, but the liability point of view. The property loss is set to the value of your house and contents. There's no decrease to a potential liability loss - you'll lose the house, and can STILL have your wages attached until you're departed, for a serious loss.
Sorry that is the least possible educated theory for any home owner.!
keep ur insurance it is cheaper by hundred of thousand$.
u can lose the house and own nothing but dirt to live on.
HI,Well, Well,you answered your own sound out. I have never see any by-law or municipal statute that required a Homeowner to carry Homeowner's insurance. Most municipalities hold some sort of by-law that states if a home is damaged beyond 'x'% afterwards the entire structure must be demolished. So if your local by-law states a home must be demolished if 75% of the home is damaged (i.e. by fire) consequently the local by-law would force you to pay to own the rest of the building demolished and the debris removed. If you former to do so the municipality may do so and send you the bill. Fail to payment the bill and they will seize the domain. Of course if you had insurance, and assuming the loss is covered, insurance would pay envelope for the demolition and debris removal and redo the house.
The only empire that would require you to have HO insurance is your mortgage company. It would be VERY dumb to repeal it just because it's remunerated off. What if it adjectives to the ground? You'd be SOL Essentially that means that you are feeling like to totally self insure your home. No help, time of year. Your not required to maintain a policy if your home is remunerated in full... nation are required when they have a mortgage.
You should maintain your insurance and find other ways to cut back within your budget.
Your final question does not label sense?? Why would insurance companies want to damage property premeditated to PAY OUT claims? They make more profit when zilch happens.
Nothing happen except, as you say, you assume responsibility for paying for any interfere with to your house. It is a calculated risk. The trouble is, if you home is badly dilapidated, you will likely lose so much equity that you will not be capable of use it as collateral for a loan. You also will not be able to provide it in shabby condition. That leaves you with the prospect of living in a destabilized home (if it is still safe) or paying for repairs out of pocket.
Answers: No, zilch happens. I've never hear of a law that requires homeowners insurance.
If the house burns down, nil happens. If it get broken into, nothing happen. If someone gets hurt on your property - YOU write the check.
I imagine it's STUPID to not have homeowners insurance - not from the property point of judgment, but the liability point of view. The property loss is set to the value of your house and contents. There's no decrease to a potential liability loss - you'll lose the house, and can STILL have your wages attached until you're departed, for a serious loss.
Sorry that is the least possible educated theory for any home owner.!
keep ur insurance it is cheaper by hundred of thousand$.
u can lose the house and own nothing but dirt to live on.
HI,Well, Well,you answered your own sound out. I have never see any by-law or municipal statute that required a Homeowner to carry Homeowner's insurance. Most municipalities hold some sort of by-law that states if a home is damaged beyond 'x'% afterwards the entire structure must be demolished. So if your local by-law states a home must be demolished if 75% of the home is damaged (i.e. by fire) consequently the local by-law would force you to pay to own the rest of the building demolished and the debris removed. If you former to do so the municipality may do so and send you the bill. Fail to payment the bill and they will seize the domain. Of course if you had insurance, and assuming the loss is covered, insurance would pay envelope for the demolition and debris removal and redo the house.
The only empire that would require you to have HO insurance is your mortgage company. It would be VERY dumb to repeal it just because it's remunerated off. What if it adjectives to the ground? You'd be SOL Essentially that means that you are feeling like to totally self insure your home. No help, time of year. Your not required to maintain a policy if your home is remunerated in full... nation are required when they have a mortgage.
You should maintain your insurance and find other ways to cut back within your budget.
Your final question does not label sense?? Why would insurance companies want to damage property premeditated to PAY OUT claims? They make more profit when zilch happens.
Nothing happen except, as you say, you assume responsibility for paying for any interfere with to your house. It is a calculated risk. The trouble is, if you home is badly dilapidated, you will likely lose so much equity that you will not be capable of use it as collateral for a loan. You also will not be able to provide it in shabby condition. That leaves you with the prospect of living in a destabilized home (if it is still safe) or paying for repairs out of pocket.