• silence7@slrpnk.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    It’s more that you can’t be assured of being able to buy the necessary insurance for 30 years, let alone the time you’re likely to live in the house after paying off the mortgage. Changing the rules to require that insurers commit to renewals for the duration of the mortgage might make it more doable, but would likely result in large areas becoming impossible to sell homes at anywhere near currently-prevailing prices.

    • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Changing the rules to require that insurers commit to renewals for the duration of the mortgage might make it more doable

      But of course will only lead insurance companies to raising premiums 50% per year until it forces the buyers out of the house, then the insurance company can get rid of the “problem”.

      Insurance is in the business of collecting premiums, NOT providing any kind of coverage whatsoever.

      • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Flood insurance in particular isn’t run by business in the US; it’s underwritten by the federal government, and has been operating at a loss for quite a while. The example in this story is somebody who while they signed up for it, experienced damage before the policy went into effect (there’s a 30-day waiting period to start)

        Homeowners insurance tends to actually pay out when you have individual uncorrelated failures (eg: house burns down due to electrical system failure) which is what’s it’s designed for. Having that around makes buying something as expensive as a house practical.