To all intents and purposes the house is vacant whether or not you try to pretend someone's living there. It would be different if you had a house sitter, but don't, so it is not only going to be seen as liable to be robbed (and otherwise trashed... you've apparently been lucky that way so far) but unlived in. You'd have been better off to either just have trusted neighbours look in once a week and cut the grass, or to completely empty it and save the money I think. The one argument that makes no sense is about your being present when the house is shown, as that is routinely not done anyway no matter how validly lived-in a house is!

We have a maid that comes once a week and someone does the yard. If we emptied the house where would we stay on the weekends? Personally I don't see any difference in someone who works out of town for several weeks at a time or someone who travels. How do people insure vacation homes? No the bottom line is they canceled our insurance because the house is FOR SALE. They really are stupid if they think I'm going to burn it to the ground with everything I own still in it.

Insurance rates are different for occupied and unoccupied dwellings. Unoccupied dwellings usually have higher rates because they statistically have higher risks. When you move out of your home and live elsewhere, it is your responsibility to notify the insurance company.

If you haven't been told otherwise, it's most likely they canceled you, rather than simply offering you a higher rate, for failing to notify them, not just because the house was unoccupied. Your agent should have made that clear to you.

It's also possible that company simply does not insure unoccupied dwellings. Again, the agent should have been forthcoming.

Vacation home get the unoccupied dwelling rate. And yes, your home, ex-home that is, is unoccupied, which is another way of saying it is vacant.

Wow..so if I go on vacation and something happens to my house when I'm gone, then there's a chance the insurance would't pay? My DH and I are both teachers and are frequently gone for a month or more in the summers.

Vacations do not usually count as 'vacant.'

The term is defined in your insurance policy, something very few folks seem to actually read.

Sorry for your problem but I disagree with your anger at the insurance company. For all intents and purpose your house is vacant, and you refuse to believe they canceled your for that reason and wish to believe they canceled your policy just because your house is for sale.
Your conspiracy mindset hinders your reasoning. Do you really believe all the other occupied houses for sale are being canceled or is it just you the insurance company is targeting?

My brother in law had his insurance canceled because his house was vacant. It also had furniture (it was staged) and utilities were still on. But no one lived in it. He had already moved to another suburb 45 minutes away. He was able to get another policy that covered vacant homes and had to pay a significant premium to do so. He too discovered that it was in his policy that the home must be occupied in order to be covered. Vacations wouldn't count of course, but not living in the home during it's time on the market clearly counts as the home being unoccupied.

I'm not really angry, just more or less dismayed. I have no idea whether other "for sale houses" have been canceled. That's why I posted this. I wanted to find out if this was common practice. It's just not something I've ever thought of or experienced. We have a neighbor whose job takes him away from his house for months at a time. I really don't see a difference.

What do you mean by saying I have a conspiracy mindset??? The insurance company knew that we didn't live there full time because we also had a renter's policy with them for the house we live in during the week where we work. It was only after a year that they decided to cancel us so naturally that made me assume that it was because it had been for sale for such a long time. We are insured through another company so all is OK. I just wondered if it was a common practice to cancel a homeowner's insurance because a house is sitting on the market for a longer time than usual?

I just wondered if it was a common practice to cancel a homeowner's insurance because a house is sitting on the market for a longer time than usual?

Your insistence that your policy was really canceled because it is "FOR SALE" is what makes me think "conspiracy mindset".
You were told by the insurance why it was canceled, others here have said it is common practice and is specified in your policy, but you still want to believe it was because your house was for sale.

We bought and were working on our present home while we lived in our last home. The first insurance company we had on the new one canceled us because we were not living here. We were here daily as well as the contractor working on but it didn't matter. Clearly insurance companies do not like to insure vacant homes.

Interesting. When my mother died and left me her house in Calif., I contacted the insurance agent to change the name on the policy. He asked me no questions -- just transferred the policy to me. I spent a few weeks there every other month there, trying to solve title problems to get it sold. It took a year and a half. I was never questioned about vacant versus nonvacant.

I have two homes insured in my name now. I've never been questioned about whether one or both are considered vacant -- obviously, I can't be in both places at the same time.
Good luck
Susan

" I have no idea whether other "for sale houses" have been canceled. That's why I posted this. I wanted to find out if this was common practice. "

Yes... it is common practice that vacant houses get cancelled.

Your house is vacant, so...

Our insurance company will write homeowners insurance for our new home. The old home, which we will put on the market, will continue to have insurance, but at new, as yet undetermined rates. We have arranged to coordinate it all through our existing agent, even though our local office does not ordinarily service our new location.

Once we are moved and the old house is sold, we have the option of transferring everything to the closer local office or keeping it where it is now. Fortunately, both locations are within the same state, so there are no jurisdictional issue.

ncamy dodged a bullet, really.

I worked with woman who moved her family out of their own home and into her mother's house to care for her. It was only a block or two away from their own house.

When a fire destroyed their house, the insurance company refused to pay for the damage because it had been uninhabited for over 30 days.

Yep. I pretty much think we were lucky now after finding out it's common practice. I really didn't know. I still don't understand why they didn't say or do anything the first 12 months when we told them we were living in a rental 2 hours away and obtained rental insurance from the same company. Call it conspiracy theory or whatever, but it still seems to me that they cancelled it because the house was for sale (and for a lengthy time, too.) In a way I can't blame the insurance companies. I bet in this economy some folks are opting for that quick illegal fix. I would never sacrifice my pretties but of course a company wouldn't know that or care about that. Sorry to hear about your friend's loss, eva.

They didn't do or say anything because they weren't told anything.

You are assuming that the person who writes new policies, or writes rental policies, is the same person who handles existing accounts. Even if one agent handles your accounts, there is no way for s/he to know you had moved out of your home, or know it was for sale, unless you told them. In this economy,

1) One spouse could have gotten an apartment in another city to take a much needed job

2) The couple could be separated, but for emotional or economic reasons, not filing for divorce.

I don't deal with our company much, but I think our agents each handle a segment of the alphabet. If one policy is under the husband's name, and another under the wife's, and they don't share the same last name (increasingly common) the two policies may be handled by different people.

You don't want to believe this, apparently, but there is simply no reason to cancel a policy on a house that is for sale. More often than not, houses for sale are occupied.

Actually, our unoccupied house was vandalized before it sold. Fortunately, it was spotted and remedied by a neighbor for very little money.

Apart from anything else, why on earth would an insurance co. give a toot whether or not you're selling your house? Doesn't make any sense.

Actually our company was told we didn't live there full time when we got the renter's insurance. At that time we also transferred our automobile insurance to the new county and it got us a lower rate. They knew a year ago that the house was "vacant." It was only after the house had been on the market a year that they decided to no longer cover it. They even cited as a reason that we were taking a risk allowing agents to show our house when we were not present. I know you guys don't want to believe me, but that is the way it happened.

Perhaps it was an agent error. Perhaps it should have been canceled when we first moved. From what you guys are saying, we were lucky that they covered us for a year without us living there. Maybe as a courtesy to a long time customer they were willing to risk it for a year. I just thought it was odd that they would change their policy after 12 months when we had not changed our situation.

You might contact the insurance's main office and repeat the reason they gave to you. Also contact the state agency with the reason. Yes it does sound discrimatory unless they do it for every person who does put the house on the market, and moves to a new place. Maybe the agent gave some wrong information in the beginning to get paid his commission. If so, he needs to return the commission. But the way I see it, your agent or the agent of where you moved to should work together both with each other and with you. But they don't. Companies and agents need to be more consumer friendly, but again they are not, and sad to say, we allow it.
Try being a senior citizen and get any insurance at a reasonable price, even auto and house.

"Actually our company was told we didn't live there full time when we got the renter's insurance."

They probably allowed you to keep the more favorable 'occupied' rates for a 'short time' as a courtesy to a loyal customer. Then when someone noticed that the vacant house was still insured as if it were occupied, the number-crunchers decided they had been courteous enough!

I get it now.. the misunderstanding of the insce. co. telling you about realtors, etc. and your having interpreted it as meaning solely that you were 'selling' and not realizing possibly that they were concerned about vandalism, etc. rather than 'selling' per se. At least that's how I now read it. I think they could have explained it better to you and saved all the drama :-)!

When I was getting insurance on our newly constructed house the insurance company asked me several times if I would be living in it full time. They had a hard time believing me because my commute was almost 2 hours each way, but I was living there full time! A lot of people try to claim a weekend place is a full time residence.

I'm glad I stumbled upon this post. Sounds like Sweeby was right. Lots of misunderstandings. I would not have known the difference in her situation either. Your agent makes a difference. I once changed companies and the woman asked if I wanted "flood insurance". I questioned her what she meant...like did I live in a flood zone?. I didn't, so I declined. Then got hit with a 100 yr flood. We had water back up. That was in the days when water back-up was not auto included i your policy. You had to start buying it separatly. I thought we had it.

I will be selling my mom's house and moving her to a rental apartment. In this economy, it may not sell fast. Glad to know I have to "somehow" know the right questions to ask.

By the way, I know someone who could not be insured because their house got hit by lightening twice and was in a 100 yr. flood. Bad Karma, they said