Mother in law has legally signed ownership of her home across to her children.

She was renewing the house insurance and disclosed that she was no longer the legal owner of the property. Insurance Co indicated that it needs to be the homeowner who takes out the insurance policy.

Is this correct?

Thanks.

for buildings cover yes: Principle of Insurable Interest. Imagine that somebody random had a buildings policy on your house, they would be motivated to burn it down and then claim on the loss event (ok extreme scenario but theoretically possible)

On a tangent.

Weirdly it was much much cheaper to insure ours in my OH’s name with me as 2nd than the other way around.

On a tangent.

Weirdly it was much much cheaper to insure ours in my OH’s name with me as 2nd than the other way around.

weird…

Mind you, I got 25% off DL just by getting a 2nd quote using a different email address!

first one I did using my spam email, then when I found a cheap one, I used my real email address and the quote dropped….

edhornby – Member
for buildings cover yes: Principle of Insurable Interest. Imagine that somebody random had a buildings policy on your house, they would be motivated to burn it down and then claim on the loss event (ok extreme scenario but theoretically possible)

Actually, no. You’re right about insurable interest, but a mere occupier of a building can also have an insurable interest in the premises, so OP’s MIL probably does still have an II.

However, that particular insurance co probably requires it, but nothing on a strict reading of the relevant law.