[redwitch]

Knowing insurance companies, I doubt it is something they would mention. I just know of two instances where there was damage to a home that was "unoccupied" -- one for a 2-month vacation (mold damage when the AC went out), the other was a snowbird (fire in garage). In both instances, their insurance companies refused to cover on the basis that they were not being diligent in taking care of their home. I have no idea who their insurance companies were.

Unless you go with Empty Nest (which is ridiculously high), most homewatch services are pretty reasonable -- under $50/month. So, I wouldn't call it expensive given the damage that can occur if your home is not watched. Plus, you can get a friend or neighbor to check for you. Just have them send you an email for proof if needed.

I am not a snowbird and I do do homewatch as part of my business, so it may seem I am trying to push my services, but I'm not. I just urge anyone whose home is going to be unoccupied for more than 30 days in a row to have someone check their home. It does help protect your home whether or not covered by insurance. I know I've found things like wasps nests; a roach infestation; a leaking toilet; notes by TV stating that weeds were taking over the yard. These were all quickly and easily resolved with no major damage or cost for the homeowner. All could have become major problems had the house not been checked weekly.