[perrjojo]

Originally Posted by janmcn

If you had not had sink hole insurance, you would be on the hook for the total cost of repairs since the house was never condemned, meaning your property insurance would not pay for the damage...correct?

What's to prevent the investor who bought the house from turning around and selling it to some unsuspecting buyer?

Same thing I was wondering...just passing on the problem to the next unsuspecting guy?

[BAILYBOOHOO]

Penny wise pound foolish !!!!! Choice is yours

[PaPaLarry]

Originally Posted by ducati1974

We currently have a 7 year old house in Virginia Trace and have sinkhole insurance coverage grandfathered in. If we change insurers we could save $200. per year but could no longer get the sinkhole coverage. Is it worth the risk? Have there been sinkholes in our area and does the fact that the house is 7 years old lessen the possibility of one?

So it really comes down to 17.00 a month? If you do one less time eating out a month, you have it beat??????

[Cantwaittoarrive]

Originally Posted by janmcn

If you had not had sink hole insurance, you would be on the hook for the total cost of repairs since the house was never condemned, meaning your property insurance would not pay for the damage...correct?

What's to prevent the investor who bought the house from turning around and selling it to some unsuspecting buyer?

That's why you should make sure an inspection is part of the contract before you purchase a house

[784caroline]

The investors are more likely than not the Sink hole repair companies. This is how we (Florida) got into this mess to begin with. The investors bought the house for the cost of the land. Say the house was valued at $300K..investors paid no more than $25-30k. the seller walks away with an insurance check for the insurable value of the property lets say $270...investor then pay the seller $30..seller is made whole. The new buyer then makes minimal or cosmetic fixups to the property and sells it under market value for lets say $250K or an immediate gain of more than $200K. Accoding to disclosure laws only the seller only has to make issues with the property known to the first buyer, so the investor has no legal requirement to "disclose " the problem to the 3rd buyer. ITS a mess but this is how we got into the situation we are in today!!

[Cantwaittoarrive]

Originally Posted by 784caroline

The investors are more likely than not the Sink hole repair companies. This is how we (Florida) got into this mess to begin with. The investors bought the house for the cost of the land. Say the house was valued at $300K..investors paid no more than $25-30k. the seller walks away with an insurance check for the insurable value of the property lets say $270...investor then pay the seller $30..seller is made whole. The new buyer then makes minimal or cosmetic fixups to the property and sells it under market value for lets say $250K or an immediate gain of more than $200K. Accoding to disclosure laws only the seller only has to make issues with the property known to the first buyer, so the investor has no legal requirement to "disclose " the problem to the 3rd buyer. ITS a mess but this is how we got into the situation we are in today!!

There is a Florida Supreme Court case called Johnson v. Davis directly on this issue. Under the Johnson case, where the seller knows of facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property which are known or accessible only to him and also knows that such facts are not known to or within the reach of the diligent attention and observation of the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer

[villages07]

Originally Posted by hook line sinker

Sink hole insurance....darn glad I had it. Last April cracks and wall separation were forming in our six year new designer home. Our insurance adjuster suspected sink hole damage. He contacted a engineering firm. We finally received the complete engineers report this mid November. Unusual as it may sound, the report advised against attempting to repair (pier/grout) the structure as the cost would most likely exceed the value of the house. The insurance company quickly made the settled. Despite my effort, TV was not interested in taking back the house. Citizens got the check. I found an investor, he got a deal. Citizens got the best part of that check. Too! Six years ago The Villages caught me by hook, line, and now sinker. I would be much worse off had it not been for the insurance.

Help me understand.... In the case described above, would the homeowner be using his add on sinkhole insurance or the "included" catastrophic ground collapse coverage? I'm still trying to figure out which coverage applies where.

Also, would be interested if this poster could supply any general cost figures.... Cost to repair, value of structure, what investor paid, and what can be done with the house from this point forward? Not being nosy, just curious.

Sure wish the POA or someone with an unbiased view of sinkhole risks could explain if the Villages is more, less, or as expected when it comes to sinkhole occurrences.

[Cantwaittoarrive]

Originally Posted by villages07

Help me understand.... In the case described above, would the homeowner be using his add on sinkhole insurance or the "included" catastrophic ground collapse coverage? I'm still trying to figure out which coverage applies where.

Also, would be interested if this poster could supply any general cost figures.... Cost to repair, value of structure, what investor paid, and what can be done with the house from this point forward? Not being nosy, just curious.

Sure wish the POA or someone with an unbiased view of sinkhole risks could explain if the Villages is more, less, or as expected when it comes to sinkhole occurrences.

One of the conditions to be covered under "catastrophic ground collapse" is the structure has to be condemed, which means you can't live in it. It sounds like from what the OP wrote he continued to live in the house so for the coverage to apply to this damage you would have to think it was under the add on "sinkhole insurance"

[AeroEngRetired]

Check this link Sinkholes of Sumter County, Florida , 2008, In the villages area, sinkholes are rare but for the extra 20 bucks I would probably go for it.

[philnc]

Since this is a first I hope I am doing it correctly.

Sinkholes and lightening rods are like apples and oranges. Totally different. Unlike lightening strikes sinkholes have become such a major problem throughout the state of Florida that insurance companies treat coverage for them as they do for hurricanes. The general rules of the policy do not cover them. Separate deductables are applied and can be as high as 30% coinsurance.

Peope I know living on the west coast of Florida never had a sinkhole problem. Last November they woke up to discover 2 sinkleholes affecting their house. They were very lucky they were covered up to $260,000 for damage. The cost of fixing those 2 holes is $200,000. Neighbors of theirs were not so lucky and in some cases the homeowners only option was to take what they could get from the insurance company and walk away from their home. Insurance companies in Florida are trying very hard not to write sinkhole coverage so if you have it keep it especially for $200 and hope that you can get it again in the future without getting hit with a huge deductable.

[tommy steam]

Originally Posted by ducati1974

We currently have a 7 year old house in Virginia Trace and have sinkhole insurance coverage grandfathered in. If we change insurers we could save $200. per year but could no longer get the sinkhole coverage. Is it worth the risk? Have there been sinkholes in our area and does the fact that the house is 7 years old lessen the possibility of one?

I just bought a new home ...my sink hole ins is 500 a year..worth it I think..you
Never know...200 hundred a year is worth peace of mind.