Having been involved with rebuilding thousands of properties from every type of catastrophe imaginable, it's been my experience that the insurance companies don't make a habit of valuing policies too high. I have seen maybe 1%-2% of insurance policies being overvalued. I have easily seen a third of insurance policies valued too low for many different reasons. It's the property owners responsibility to know and understand these policies and sadly 95% of policy owners don't know what their buying. When limits are reached, you're done. Unless an E&O policy can be utilized if the broker made a mistake, when limits are reached, the well is dry. Its buyer beware folks and what you can sell your home for has nothing to do with the value of an insurance policy!!!! betaiota has some good points and many other variables need to be considered. The replacement policy value tends to set the basis for other coverage's such as contents, detached buildings and additional living expenses. So if your replacement value is low, you'll likely be low all the way down the line. Most insurance adjustors will allow you to move expenses from one bucket of policy money to another but once limits are reached, it's over. Keep in mind policy limits are affected by emergency services to the building, demolition, debris removal, cleaning and professional fees such as architects and engineers. Code upgrades which can be a big issue in older properties also can affect policy limits. To demo a house and haul the debris to a landfill can run into tens of thousands. There are limits for contents, usually 50% of the building and some policies up to 75%. Most people don't insure valuable contents properly. If you have specific high value items in the home such as art work, jewelry, coins, silverware, collections, etc. etc. you should probably schedule these with a rider. To have all your contents, furniture, clothing, etc, etc, cleaned and put into storage while your home is being rebuilt is expensive and falls under your contents coverage. Additional Living Expenses are usually 20% of the replacement value or it's capped at 12 months. Some higher end policies have no limits on A.L.E. but those are not typical. On a major claim for a total rebuild A.L.E. can easily run out if there are some problems or the value is too low. Unless you have money to spare, spending your own money to live in a rental property and the expenses that go with it, while your home is being rebuilt get ugly real fast. Detached structures such as garages, sheds and pools are usually valued at 10% of the homes replacement value. If you have a detached garage with an apartment above it or an in ground pool with some nice hardscaping around it, 10% can easily be low if the main policy value is low. In short, there are many variable to your insurance policy and you should know what they are, what you need and how much you are buying. I won't say you can never have enough insurance but if you're under insured with a major claim, you and your families lives will be adversely affected for many years to follow.

"Just out of curiosity, who here thinks that you can build an new old house? " You do not have to use old materials, just old techniques in most cases. Plaster instead of drywall, mud beds for tile floors and walls instead of cement board, etc. You neither can use nor want lead plumbing (DWV or supply), but cast iron is still available (though not with poured lead & oakum joints). Electrical wiring has moved a long way since K&T (and the lack of any electricity before that in many houses). Hardwood floors are not going to be as tight a grain as very old stuff (especially if it was virgin timber) but there is no shortage of wood flooring, even in very large widths of you want to pay the cost. Virgin reclaimed (from old buildings or bodies of water) is also available. There is no reason to use full size dimension lumber (though it can be found if you want to look & pay). Joist spans are likely smaller than in very old structures, so extra wood is likely to be needed (I have never considered the bouncy floors of an older structure a 'feature' worth preserving or repeating. I do not think anyone wants to exactly recreate the old house, just the important parts of the surface finishes. I have repaired 18th century townhouses in Alexandria, VA so that you cannot even tell without putting a hole in the wall to see the new framing and wiring.

Sorry that you've had this hassle to cope with, apart from the expense. Around here, we have no fault insurance. When I was in an accident and not judged at fault, my insurance paid for the write-off of my old car ('93 Ford Taurus). Paid me about what I'd bought it for, about 6 mos. previously. When I (evidently) ran the red light, as I was found to be at fault and ticketed, there was no compensation ... I had to suffer the loss of my car. Actually, I fixed it, at larger cost than it had cost me to buy it, about 6 mos. earlier, as it appeared, at about 120,000 mi., to have potentially quite a few good miles left in it and it seemed a waste to scrap it, though it was close to 20 years old. It costs a great deal of precious energy, plus adds to not only pollution but to global warming as well to build a new car for me (or the portion of its life that I'd use in an older model). Even if she had insurance, if she had no driver's licence, they likely would not have covered, in any event. The owner of the car had responsibility to ensure that only licensed drivers drove it - apart from it being stolen. When my friend the milk man wanted to go on holiday, with his son to drive the route, son had to upgrade driver's licence from, supposedly, permission to drive truck to one with air brakes. There was ice in the home when I visited, as it appeared that the son had only licence to drive a car, the Dad had given him the devil, the Mom was angry at Dad for hurting her son's feelings ... and found it hard to get her head around the fact that every time the son drove that truck out the lane unaccompanied by a properly licensed driver, he put at risk everything that they owned ... as the insurance company would not have covered any trouble. Actually ... I upgraded my truck licence to coverage for air brake and rode around sitting beside the son as he did the driving, or I drove the truck myself. ole joyful

Lora: Your great views and lot size have nothing to do with the insurance value. Insurance only covers replacement of the home and does not insure the land. Take this a step further, my insurance policy states it does not cover the portion of the home that is under ground. (Do other policies say this also, this policy was with a very large carrier in the USA.). To me, this means the footings, the underground plumbing and electrical, as well as the septic tank, are not covered. In my case, this is approx $25k in building costs (due to expensive foundation). I would have assumed that the 'cost to build' that my insurer calculated would have been much cheaper, given the fact that they are not really insuring the entire home,but instead only insuring the above ground portion of the home. But also in my case the insurance company came in with an estimate of at least $100k OVER our actual cost to build, and our cost also included the foundation, septic system, etc. All I can say is, shop around. Just recently, I switched carriers after having lived in the home awhile and got a new carrier that came up with a cost-to-build approx $50k lower the the first carrier. ---------------------------------- An open question to the insurance pros on this forum....what is the deal with max amt of deductible allowed for most mortgage companies? One of the insurance agents said mortgagers require no more than a 500 deductible. He squawked when I tried to raise it. I ended up switching carriers and got a 1000 deductible. But was wondering about increasing it more . (Am afraid to contact lender to ask in case they say it is 500 and make me lower what I already have.) I read my lender paperwork and it does not give an actual deductible requirement.