Home insurance, and the part of your flat nobody insured

Three covers sold as one document

A home insurance policy is three separate covers bundled into one document: the structure, the contents, and your liability to other people. For a flat owner the structure is usually the smallest of the three exposures — and the only one anybody thinks about.

Read down the last two rows and the problem appears. The cover a flat owner is most likely to be sold is the one somebody else already holds; the two whose cheques would reach their own bank account are the two that nothing — no bye-law, no lender, no registrar — obliges anybody to buy.

A renter has no structure exposure at all, which is why contents-only cover is cheap: the largest-looking number in the table has been taken out of it. All of this is insuring the unaffordable rather than the annoying, applied to a specific address.

The sum insured is a construction estimate, not a valuation

Every section of a property policy is written for one headline figure — the most the insurer can pay under it, called the sum insured. The most common instruction people give when setting it is to insure the flat for what the flat is worth. That figure is wrong, and wrong by a factor rather than a margin.

A property's market price is land, location, floor rise and what the last flat in the tower sold for. Fire consumes none of that. After the worst day the building can have, the plot and its address are still there. So the only thing a structure policy can sensibly pay for is the cost of putting the building back — materials, labour, professional fees, and clearing the debris before any of it starts.

Put numbers on it, and treat every one of them as an assumption to be replaced with your own. A 1,000 sq ft flat in a metro with a market value of ₹1.2 crore. Suppose local reconstruction runs at ₹2,500 per square foot; that flat's share of the rebuild is ₹25 lakh. The other ₹95 lakh is land and location — value that cannot be destroyed and therefore can never be claimed.

Insuring at ₹1.2 crore does not buy a ₹1.2 crore payout. A property policy puts you back where you were and no further — capped by the sum insured, but never more than the loss actually suffered. That principle has a name: indemnity. The extra ₹95 lakh earns the insurer a premium every year and cannot produce a rupee of claim.

The error runs the other way too, and that one is expensive. A rebuild rate is not permanent — steel, cement and labour are each priced by their own market — so to the extent those prices have risen since the policy was first written, a sum insured carried forward unchanged for a decade now sits below the cost of rebuilding. That gap has a settlement consequence, and it is not the one most people expect.

Under-insure and every claim shrinks, not just the big one

Take the same flat, rebuild cost ₹25 lakh, insured for ₹12.5 lakh. The intuition is that claims up to ₹12.5 lakh are paid in full and anything above is not. Property policies do not settle that way.

Where the sum insured falls short of the value at risk, the insurer treats you as having carried the uninsured share yourself and pays that same proportion of every claim. The settlement is the loss multiplied by the sum insured over the rebuild cost. Here that multiplier is ₹12.5 lakh over ₹25 lakh, or one half, so a ₹2 lakh kitchen fire settles at ₹1 lakh — less the deductible, the first slice of any claim you bear yourself.

The clause that does this is called average. Its penalty for under-insuring is not a smaller cap but a percentage taken off every cheque, and it reaches the small claims exactly as readily as the total loss.

The uncomfortable part is the timing. Nothing in a premium receipt tells you the sum insured is short. The surveyor works out the rebuild cost after the fire, from the same area-times-rate arithmetic that was skipped when the policy was bought.

India's standard retail home product addresses this directly, and the mechanism is worth knowing even if you buy something else: it removes the average clause provided the structure sum insured is declared on a prescribed basis — floor area times a stated construction rate — rather than picked. Accuracy is rewarded by deleting a deduction you would otherwise never see coming. The exact basis belongs in the current wording, not in an article that will age.

What the society's policy does for your flat, and what it does not

It insures the builder's shell and pays the society, not you. Everything you own inside the flat, everything you spent on fitting it out, and any damage that starts in your flat and ends in somebody else's all sit outside it. Co-operative housing societies generally do carry a fire policy on the building — in most states the model bye-laws oblige the society to insure it — and four questions set out what it leaves you holding.

Two consequences follow. A loss confined to one flat is frequently not claimed at all — it may sit near the deductible, the committee carries the paperwork, and internal repairs are the owner's obligation under most bye-laws anyway. And when the society does claim, the money goes to reinstating the building, which means the shell.

That makes one question worth raising at the next general body meeting: what construction rate was the building's sum insured calculated at, and when was it last revised? This is the rare exposure that no policy of your own can close. Average is applied to the society's claim, not to yours, and the shortfall then arrives as a levy on the members.

The arithmetic is one division and is better done before the meeting than after the fire. Suppose the society insured at ₹1,500 per square foot while rebuilding now costs ₹2,500 — both figures are assumptions, to be replaced with local ones. The building is insured for 60% of its value, so a ₹50 lakh structural fire is settled at ₹30 lakh and the other ₹20 lakh is raised from the flat owners. An owner whose own policy is sized perfectly still pays a share of that, because the under-insurance sits in somebody else's contract. It is the one number in this article that a single flat owner cannot fix alone — only raise.

The fit-out gap

Here is the wedge. The society insures the shell. A contents policy insures what is movable. Your interiors are neither.

The modular kitchen, the built-in wardrobes, the false ceiling, the imported flooring, the bathroom fittings, the wiring you had redone before moving in — these are permanent fixtures you paid for after handover. They sit outside the society's sum insured, because that number is area times a construction rate for a builder's shell and takes no account of what any owner spent. They are not contents either, because contents means things you could carry out of the door. Call it the fit-out gap: the part of a flat too fixed to be contents and too personal to be in the society's structure cover.

The arithmetic makes it sharper than the description does. Same flat — rebuild share ₹25 lakh, interiors ₹15 lakh, belongings ₹8 lakh. Of the ₹48 lakh a fire can actually destroy, the ₹25 lakh shell belongs to the society's policy and pays the society. The ₹23 lakh you would personally spend to make the flat liveable again is, for most owners, insured by nobody. The owner who decided home cover was pointless because the flat is worth ₹1.2 crore and is not going anywhere was right about the building and wrong about their own money.

Notice that ₹23 lakh is not a catastrophe number. A contained kitchen fire, a burst terrace tank or a short circuit behind a false ceiling reaches interiors and contents long before it threatens the frame. The fit-out gap is opened by ordinary accidents, which is exactly why it is the part worth insuring.

The fix is a declaration rather than a different product. Retail home package policies generally allow interior fittings to be insured once they are declared and valued as a stated item, separately from the structure and the movables — though where a wording draws the line between a fixture and a content varies, so that clause is worth reading rather than assuming. It costs premium on a figure most people have never estimated, and estimating it — from the fit-out invoices plus what those items cost to redo today — is most of the work.

Contents: two settlement bases and a sub-limit that surprises people

Contents cover looks simple until a claim, when two policy details decide most of the outcome.

The settlement basis. One basis pays what a seven-year-old refrigerator is worth — replacement cost less depreciation for age and use. That is indemnity, and it is what a cheap policy often is. The other pays what a new equivalent costs today, with nothing deducted for age: new-for-old, called reinstatement in the schedule, and what most people assume they bought. It costs more premium, because the insurer's expected payout on the same fridge is larger. That is the trade, and the schedule states which one you hold.

The valuables sub-limit. Jewellery, watches, silver and curios are usually capped inside a contents section — both per article and in total — unless each item is specifically declared with a valuation and accepted by the insurer. The specific mistake here is recognisable: ₹6 lakh of jewellery sitting in a bedroom almirah, a contents sum insured of ₹8 lakh, and a settlement governed by an unspecified-valuables cap that is a small fraction of both. If valuables are the reason for the policy, they have to be named in it — or kept somewhere that changes the risk, which is a separate decision with its own trade-offs and its own bank locker guide.

Both details point at the same homework: a written inventory with photographs and, where they exist, invoices. Insurers do not pay for items you cannot evidence, and the week after a fire is the worst time to reconstruct a list of what was in the house.

The flat below yours

Fire is the peril the policy is named after. The one that puts neighbours in an argument is water, and the reason is structural: your floor is somebody's ceiling, and the pipes inside your flat are generally your responsibility rather than the society's.

A failed waterproofing membrane under a bathroom floor, or a burst inlet line behind a wall, seeps into the ceiling of the flat below. Under most society bye-laws the plumbing inside a flat is the owner's responsibility, which makes the ruined false ceiling downstairs the owner's liability. The society's policy does not respond, because the society is not the party at fault. The neighbour's own policy, if they hold one, pays them and their insurer may then come to you.

Public liability cover is the section that answers this, and it is built differently from the other two: its limit is a number you choose, not one derived from the property. A premium tracks the expected cost of the events it covers, and these are rare, so the liability section usually adds far less to the bill than the structure section. Once the limit is set there is nothing else to decide.

The same section carries the landlord and tenant split, which routinely produces disputes. The landlord's exposure is the structure and any fittings they own; the tenant's is their own belongings plus the damage they might cause. A security deposit is not an insurance policy — it is a fixed amount held against a loss that is not fixed, and it runs out.

What actually decides a home policy

Six things, roughly in order of how much they change a claim outcome.

1. The perils list. A standard fire and special perils policy names what it covers. Earthquake, flood, storm and terrorism have moved between the base cover and the add-on list over the years, so the question is whether the peril your address is exposed to is inside this year's wording.
2. The structure sum insured, and its basis. Area times a current construction rate — not market value, not the purchase price, not last year's number carried forward.
3. Whether interiors are declared. The fit-out gap closes only if the figure is written into the schedule.
4. Contents: basis and sub-limits. New-for-old or depreciated, and what happens to jewellery that has not been specified.
5. Liability limit. The one number in the policy that has nothing to do with the building.
6. Term and add-ons. A long-term policy locks a rate for several years, which is convenient, and locks a sum insured that any subsequent rise in construction costs erodes, which is not. Alternative accommodation cover — rent while the flat is uninhabitable — is worth checking for: six months of living elsewhere is a real cost that appears in no repair estimate.

One more, for buyers. Property cover taken at a lender's branch alongside a home loan is often sized to the loan outstanding rather than the rebuild cost, and is often structure-only. Both are common enough to check for on the schedule rather than assume against. Those two numbers protect two different parties: the loan-linked figure protects the lender's recovery, the rebuild figure protects your ability to live in the flat again. A policy can be valid, fully paid, and sized for someone else's problem.

Where this sits, and the money you did not spend

Home insurance is a small recurring cost attached to a large, rare loss, which is the shape insurance is for — and it means the premium is not the interesting number. The interesting numbers are the rebuild rate, the interiors valuation and the liability limit.

Two things sit beside the policy rather than inside it. Every property claim carries a deductible and a settlement delay, so the first weeks after an incident are funded from an emergency fund, not by the insurer. And the premium not spent over-insuring land that cannot burn stays on the savings side of the plan — a separate exercise that blending the two reliably damages.

That savings side is measurable rather than arguable. FNOTrader's Mutual Funds app runs on the full published price history of Indian schemes — the per-unit price at which a scheme is bought and sold, the net asset value or NAV, as collected by the industry body AMFI, around 34 million rows of it. For any scheme and period it reports the single return rate that reconciles cashflows landing on irregular dates — XIRR — alongside invested against value, rolling-return distributions and drawdown history.

FNOTrader does not sell insurance and does not recommend policies or insurers, and is not a SEBI-registered investment adviser. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, hold or switch any product.

Common questions

Continue reading

More in Insurance · App: Mutual Funds · Definitions: glossary · Free tools: calculators · All: every article