General Landlording & Rental Properties
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback
Anyone using Steadily for landlord insurance
I'm shopping insurance again this year because my first renewal is in May and Farmers is raising the cost by 30%. I came across a better quote from Steadily today and it looks enticing but they are relatively new to this industry. Can anyone give any feedback on this company whether it be positive or negative?
@Kristi K. My experience most landlord policy premiums here in Texas have gone up as much as 40% in the past year. The reason is several carriers have pulled out of Texas with regards to landlord policies. But this has been going on for years where some pull out and others enter the market. I personally haven't heard of Steadily. But my personal experience is the newer companies tend to be the ones that pull out of Texas within a few years if not sooner. Thus, your back to square one with looking for a new carrier. I insure my rentals with a commercial broker, Mark Roland with Four Square Insurance , that shops many carriers and tracks trends, etc. I would recommend you reach out to him directly @Mark Roland to get a quote. He can insure rentals in Texas and Oklahoma. Hope this helps you in your REI journey.
-
Real Estate Agent Texas (#0689082)
Quote from @Joe Funari:
@Kristi K. I would recommend you reach out to him directly @Mark Roland to get a quote. He can insure rentals in Texas and Oklahoma. Hope this helps you in your REI journey.
Quote from @Huston Kennedy:
Steadily or Steady?
Steadily. I'm a partner in an Independent Agency that represents Steadily along with many other companies. Feel free to PM me with any specific questions or if you need advice.
Quote from @Kristi K.:
Quote from @Joe Funari:
@Kristi K. I would recommend you reach out to him directly @Mark Roland to get a quote. He can insure rentals in Texas and Oklahoma. Hope this helps you in your REI journey.
Interested to hear how this turns out. Looking as well
I heard about Steadily from the authors of the latest BP book on self-managing. I thought to give it a try and ask for quotes from them. The process went fast online, and I was contacted right after through SMS and phone by an accommodating and polite rep. Their quotes were for much higher coverage (e.g current policy is 260K on a house with market value of 275K, including ~50K land, their coverage was 340K) and cheaper (~$350 less than current premium). It included similar "loss of rental income", same liability limits, included building code upgrade, vandalism and even 10% for water damage and 5K for rot. This was the good part.
The bad part - not much. The "other structures" were only 10K, while everybody else goes by 10% of the coverage (on 340K coverage of the main structure, you get 34K other structures).
The ugly part - much higher deductibles: $5000 general deductible and 3% wind/hail deductible (on a 340K coverage it comes to a whopping $10K+ deductible...makes you understand their "largesse" on unnecessary higher coverage...if they know the rebuilding cost is 250K, they can give you 300K+ because they will not have to pay more than rebuilding cost, but it pushes the deductibles higher).
We concluded:
1. For saving a couple of hundred dollars a year we gain the "privilege" pay $1K-3K in general deductible and $4K-6K in hail/wind deductible (and likely 80% of the cost of a new roof here in TX). General "return" in 15-20 years (vs. getting hit by a storm and having to cover that huge deductible), longer than the lifetime of a roof.
2. A good policy for a place where nothing happens or one for total catastrophic insurance - the type where a fire destroys the house, or a tornado takes it away, including the bed bugs. But nothing in between, as those deductibles prohibit you from opening any claim that is not total.
3. More hype than usefulness. We decided to stay put.
Quote from @Costin I.:
The ugly part - much higher deductibles: $5000 general deductible
@Kristi K. - not to me. They saw I was in Texas, saw I had in my claim history hail claims, and they "tailored" the policies offering such a way they made sure the policy was unusable for anything else other than a total loss. As I mentioned, for saving a couple of hundred dollars a year we would gain the "privilege" of paying $1K-3K MORE in general deductible (5K total) and $4K-6K MORE in hail/wind deductible (10K+). With that kind of deductibles, can't imagine too many scenarios where you could use the policies other than massive or complete loss.
Quote from @Costin I.:
@Kristi K. - not to me.
Got it, thx, this was the kind of feedback I was looking for. Almost zero positive feedback actually so that really answers my original question.
A few notes:
1. Texas is unique animal currently for insurance so offerings are different there than other states although that's always the case state by state
2. $2,500 deductible is pretty much the standard on any dwelling (home or rental) at this point and $5,000 isn't uncommon at all. If you have a $30,000 loss (very common) I don't think a $2,500 difference is going to change whether or not you'll file a claim. Also, many contractors will work with you on your deductible so you have less out of pocket. As an insurance agent I'm not supposed to say the quiet part out loud but that's the reality of things. It all depends on the size and type of claim of course.
3. I'm an independent agent (representing dozens of companies) including Steadily and would have no problem insuring my own property with them. It's all about your own situation and risk tolerance. No issues with @Costin I. deciding Steadily wasn't your best fit but you're painting with a very broad brush to say their insurance is only for total losses or that they're systematically over-insuring their properties to keep deductibles high. That is not the case.
@Owen Rosen - yes,$2,000-$2500 general and 1%-2% (or 2,5K-5K) wind/hail deductible is pretty standard (that's what I currently have on my policies).
What do you call a policy with $5,000 general and $10,000-$12,000 wind/hail deductible that offers 10K coverage on other structures, 5K coverage on water damage and with roof replacement cost of ~15K? At those numbers, the insurance will never kick in other than for catastrophic losses.
And also, are you saying Allstate, Progressive, and Safeco don't know what they are doing, or conspiring to offer only 230K coverage (on a house with a market value of 250K, which includes 40-50K in land), while Steadily considers necessary 340K minimum coverage (house only, and that for $2-$300 less in premium)?
FYI - I checked with my insurers about increasing the coverage values, and I was told by the agent that is the value their construction cost algorithm shows and, while my choice, I would overinsure by paying for more coverage.
On the surface, it's great insurance - more coverage for less premium. Till you realize for what deductibles and have an actual need to file a claim.
"I was told by the agent that is the value their construction cost algorithm shows" - their algorithm suggests they can fully reconstruct a house for 230K? That seems super super low. FWIW, I'm generally going with stated-value insurance that matches the FMV, knowing it's 60% of actual reconstruction cost. If the house burns down, we'll just take the insurance payout, payoff the mortgage, pocket the rest, sell the bare dirt for ~nothing, and walk away.
@Andrew C. - why do you think that is "super super low"? The houses are 2010+, the market value is somewhere 230K-250K, the appraised value includes 40K+ land, and new houses are built close by for the same 230-250K range....why would the replacement cost be 340K?
["If the house burns down, we'll just take the insurance payout"...pyromaniac logic LOL...do you overinsure your properties on that hope? j/k]
Quote from @Costin I.:
@Andrew C. - why do you think that is "super super low"? The houses are 2010+, the market value is somewhere 230K-250K, the appraised value includes 40K+ land, and new houses are built close by for the same 230-250K range....why would the replacement cost be 340K?
["If the house burns down, we'll just take the insurance payout"...pyromaniac logic LOL...do you overinsure your properties on that hope? j/k]
Insurance doesn't pay replacement cost if you walk away. If you are not going to rebuild they will settle at actual cash value/market value minus the land.
There are policies out there that will settle at cash-out replacement cost but they are rare and typically offered by higher end insurers for higher end owner-occupied homes.
Every insurance company uses software to determine the estimated replacement cost of a home. These estimates can vary from company to company but usually incrementally rather than dramatically.
This assumes the information going in to the software is the same. Sometimes if there isn't an agent involved (or an agent that isn't properly engaged) the software will use incorrect assumptions due to errors in public record and available data. Examples would be incorrect square footage, incorrect year built, incorrect style of home or materials.
These are very common errors based on public record and that's why an agent should confirm details!
Here's another data point:
The renewal offer from my current insurer for an SFR rental in Huntsville, AL is nearly double the current premium. So I received a quote from a Steadily agent. For apparently similar coverage, the price was actually a little less than the current premium. So I said yes.
After receiving and reviewing the policy documents, I found that the insurer (Fortegra Speciality Insurance) is a surplus lines carrier, which makes me a little uncomfortable. I'm going to shop around and see if I can get a comparable price with an admitted carrier, but am curious what the group thinks. Am I being unreasonable?
Quote from @Matt Huber:
Here's another data point:
The renewal offer from my current insurer for an SFR rental in Huntsville, AL is nearly double the current premium. So I received a quote from a Steadily agent. For apparently similar coverage, the price was actually a little less than the current premium. So I said yes.
After receiving and reviewing the policy documents, I found that the insurer (Fortegra Speciality Insurance) is a surplus lines carrier, which makes me a little uncomfortable. I'm going to shop around and see if I can get a comparable price with an admitted carrier, but am curious what the group thinks. Am I being unreasonable?
I wouldn't be overly concerned that it's surplus lines carrier but I'd be VERY concerned that the agent didn't mention it. Beware of call centers!
Matt,
I would never just write off a carrier because they're "non-admitted". Lloyds of London is practically the originator of insurance, and only writes on non-admitted paper. As a carrier recognized across the world, they're about as fortified as they come. Some people think non-admitted means not licensed, and that's incorrect. This term has nothing to do with being licensed to write insurance or not. Non-admitted simply means that the carrier isn't backed by the state fund if they ever go insolvent.
The state fund pulls a certain amount of premium from all "admitted" carriers and the policies they bind, and puts that little bit of money back in a state fund / pool. So, if that "admitted" carrier ever goes insolvent, then the state will pull from the fund to pay any open claims. However, there's no "guarantee" the state will pay all open claims left behind by that insolvent admitted carrier, nor how quickly they will pay those claims.
Look at the carrier's financial strength, financial outlook, and longevity via AM Best ratings. This helps if you're investigating any carrier, and looking for their financial stability or their ability to pay claims. Most of the industry (as well as lending and banking world) will stand behind any carrier with an "A" rating or better.
Non-admitted carriers have some great advantages. They have a greater flexibility when it comes to rates/premiums they can charge, and they also have more flexibility when it comes to the coverage forms/policy language they write.
I personally wouldn't have any issues quoting or binding my own coverage with a non-admitted carrier as long as their financial stability and outlook rating was "A" or better. I also wouldn't have any hesitation presenting my clients with the same non-admitted option. A good agent should be able to present multiple options and describe the pros and cons of either option/policy (whether on admitted paper or non-admitted paper).
I hope you find this helpful.
I use State Farm. My agent beats all other rates, somehow, I don't ask. And I get to bother him whenever I want.
Quote from @Bo Bond:
Look at the carrier's financial strength, financial outlook, and longevity via AM Best ratings. This helps if you're investigating any carrier, and looking for their financial stability or their ability to pay claims. Most of the industry (as well as lending and banking world) will stand behind any carrier with an "A" rating or better.
How do I check the financial strength, outlook and longevity of an insurance company? I tried the AM Best website but it appears a subscription is required...
I'm pretty sure you're correct in that you have to have a subscription to get an AM Best report. Sometimes you can Google the actual carrier name along with AM Best rating, and find details without having a subscription. I'm just not sure how much detail you'll find. You could also request it from the agent who quoted that carrier on your behalf since they have access to those carriers / underwriters directly. I bet those carrier representatives have access to their companies AM Best reports, and would be willing to share those details with you. In fact, many formal quotes usually have these details listed within the proposal itself.