房子还没sattle

shayy

Which state are you in? In SA you have to buy insurance since the exchange of contract.
But it is still not your house and you can't apply any change to it.
I found it is ridiculous too.

monicasteps

原帖由 多情圣手 于 2012-7-2 11:27 发表
房屋保险是要在settle之前买，生效时间就定在SETTLE当天～
correct!

年轻时代

原帖由 jill 于 2012-7-2 00:53 发表
晕了,我的中介给我来信说建议我尽快去买房屋保险.我打给我的律师问,律是说:你的中介很负责,很多中介都不提醒的.只要签完字后说是应该我去买保险
给他几巴掌问他： who bears damage before settlement?!   边打边说：叫你买，叫你买。。。

年轻时代

原帖由 多情圣手 于 2012-7-2 11:27 发表
房屋保险是要在settle之前买，生效时间就定在SETTLE当天～
还有楼下那位说correct。  你买的时候怎么就知道那天就是settlement date?!   提前或延后属于非常正常的事情。 insurance act 或policy里说的很明白：double insurance是有问题地。
基础知识啊。

Jill

我今天打电话问了两个律师,他们都说确实该我买得

年轻时代

原帖由 jill 于 2012-7-2 21:55 发表
我今天打电话问了两个律师,他们都说确实该我买得
如果您是NSW的，那真的无话了。您听律师的吧。
如果您是其他省的，原理基本一致，不会有太大差异。

jewar

昆省要求交换合同后就买，好像不然不能贷款

年轻时代

原帖由 jewar 于 2012-7-2 22:12 发表
昆省要求交换合同后就买，好像不然不能贷款
那个是building insurance taking effect on or after the settlement.
能做convenyancing的 “第一课” land law 以及 NSW Land of Sale里专门提到过  insurance vendor or purchaser买的冲突。
至于谁负责settlement之前的risk.这种简直就不用问了。

年轻时代

原因在于in practice, solicitors in New South Wales advise purchasers of the need to insure. Almost certainly, a solicitor who neglects adequately to explain the dangers in failing to insure is guilty of professional negligence and liable to the client for any loss sustained
上面是如果律师不说需要买保险，那么律师职责没尽到。
但下面是关键：
“Double” Insurance
Since both the vendor and purchaser have insurable interests in the property even though the risk may have passed to the purchaser, each may insure for the full value of the property. This regularly occurs in practice, at least where the parties to the contract for sale are legally advised. Upon exchange of contracts, the purchaser takes out insurance for the full value of the improvements, and the vendor retains (and, if necessary, renews) the existing insurance until completion. The result is that two policies are current and two premiums are paid for the period between contract and completion.  As a result of the indemnity principle, it could be argued that the vendor’s insurance reaps a legal windfall From the insurer’s point of view it might be suggested that the “windfall” is actually reflected in reduced premiums, the benefit of which is passed on to insured persons
... 中间巨长的探讨
Both the vendor and the purchaser have an insurable interest in the property between contract and completion. In practice, the result is that there are usually two policies current and two premiums paid for this period, although the amounts involved are generally modest. Both the vendor and the purchaser would still have an insurable interest even where the risk remains with the vendor until completion. Whether there would be “double insurances” during this period would depend on the willingness of purchasers to accept a right to rescind the contract or to receive an abatement of the purchase price in the event of damage, as a substitute for a separate insurance policy.
(注：这个探讨中没提到 insurance act）
以上的前提（也就是purchaser不用买的原因）
who bears the loss if the property is damaged or destroyed between the time of entry into the contract for sale and the time of completion of the sale?   ----vendor.
[ 本帖最后由 年轻时代 于 2012-7-2 22:34 编辑 ]

年轻时代

这个话题不错，正好补充知识了：
继续：
double insurance is said to exist. If one of those insurers indemnifies the insured for its loss, the insured cannot then call upon the co-insurer to indemnify it - although the insurer who paid the claim may be entitled to receive a contribution from the co-insurer.
This sounds simple enough, however double insurance claims regularly end up in court, particularly where policies cover multiple insureds involved in contractual relationships. Sometimes what appear to be quite similar fact situations lead to very different outcomes.
The Victorian Court of Appeal was recently called upon to adjudicate in one such dispute in which the insurer called upon to contribute relied on an earlier decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in which the co-insurer had successfully defended a claim for contribution. The Victorian Court of Appeal, however, upheld the decision of the trial judge and ordered the insurer of a sub-contractor to contribute 50% of the amount paid under a policy taken out by the principal contractor in respect of damage to a third party's property
insurance – basic principlesIt is well accepted that an insurer under an indemnity policy, including liability insurance, may obtain contribution from a co-insurer if it can establish that:
1.    it is liable to indemnify the insured in respect of the risk;
2.    it has paid sums in respect of that liability;
3.    the co-insurer is also liable to indemnify the insured for the same risk; and
4.    the co-insurer has not paid moneys to meet this liability to the insured.
The insurances need not be identical but, whatever else may be covered, each must cover the risk which has given rise to the claim. There may be differences in the extent of the coverage for a particular risk, but that may only affect the amount of contribution recoverable, not whether the same risk is covered.
The time for determining whether there is double insurance is 'the time of the casualty'.
The test often applied is whether payment by one insurer of the policy holder’s claim for indemnity would provide the other insurer with a defence to a like claim against it.