@Wavingfish,
We did a sit in Kent, England. They had had a break in prior to our sit.
But they told us that having a house sitter while they were away, reduced their home insurance bill, because the house was not left empty.
1 Like
All depends on the insurance company. I can leave my property empty for up to 60 consecutive days without it affecting my premium.
It’s always worth checking the insurance companies clauses in your policy, as you can easily invalidate your insurance.
I just had a long conversation with my insurance agent in Florida and came away discouraged. Florida is a unique market because many insurance companies have stopped writing homeowners insurance because of losses incurred after hurricanes Irma and Ian. More importantly, they are looking to deny claims based on misrepresentation, the most relevant here being the rep that the homeowner is the occupant of the home.
A pet sitter who occupies the house while the owner is present is a third party and not within the scope of the representation… If the sitter is injured, trashes the residence or sets it on fire, the claim would be deniable as the event was not a risk assumed by the carrier.
One solution is to cancel the std homeowner policy in favor of renters insurance at twice the premium. However reverting to a homeowner policy may be problematic.
This may be a Florida problem but I thought it worthwhile to pass on.
1 Like
My home insurance wish to cancel my policy 1 week before my sit as they don’t cover house sitters staying. I’m in the UK. Does anyone have any recommendations for insurance companies that do allow sitters without an extortionate premium please?
@LynneMarie I don’t have an answer to your question. However, I sat for homeowners in Australia and it was a first sitter experience for them. Their insurance said that if they had one locked room and moved their valuables to that room, they would be covered. The down side was that they chose their bedroom with an ensuite bathroom. I had to explain that if there was a plumbing issue, I would not be able to access that room. They were willing to take that chance and thankfully nothing happened.
I’m mentioning it only in case some other owners would be covered if they used this approach. Something to check with their insurers, of course.
1 Like
Have you tried the AA for house insurance ? It appears that they approve of having house sitters as long as they have public liability insurance (which THS provides with standard and Premium membership )
House-sitting and home insurance | AA Insurance.
Please report back when you find a suitable company as it will help other members.
I just looked into this related to the new booking fees. I am a renter, not a homeowner, but I have renter’s insurance. All of this will vary based on country and insurance company of course, but when everything was just a member-to-member “swap”, my insurance company told me that if I had a sitter stay at my place, since no money had been paid specific to that stay, they would just be considered a guest and it would have no impact on my insurance. (To be clear, I have only used THS as a sitter, not as a pet parent).
In light of the new “booking fees”, however, I decided to revisit this. My insurance said that since the “guest” might have paid a fee to stay at my place, that changes everything - I would have to have an insurance policy equivalent to what I would have paid for an AirBnB arrangement, which is considerably more expensive, and I would have to prove that having guests “book” my place is allowed by the homeowner’s association and the municipality in which I live - which, in my case, it is not.
This will not affect me personally as I had only ever used THS to sit, not to host, but for all the homeowners / pet parents out there I strongly encourage you to check with your insurance agent to ensure your homeowner’s coverage will still be valid if you use THS sitters in the future. For my part I’m moving to just arranging sits off platform with no money changing hands, but I’ll be sure to ask the hosts to check their insurance as I wouldn’t want someone to end up with a huge bill if something happens while I’m there, whether it’s a fall from a broken step or a flood from faulty plumbing.
3 Likes
Housesitters are not paying you though, they are paying THS an extra fee.
We have been told previously that insurance companies welcome sitters staying and our homeowners insurance went down because they had a sitter.
My thoughts on the fees are irrelevant right now, but like many others, as long standing 5* sitters, we feel scammed that we had to agree to the new rules to be able to sign on to the site.
1 Like
Yes, I know that they are not paying ME, but the insurance company says that for my particular policy it makes a difference if they are paying for a particular stay versus paying to be “members in a club”. Ditto for municipal rules and homeowner’s associations.
If a member of my “soccer club” stays in my house - no problem. But if I’m letting people stay in my house only if they pay a fee for that particular stay - whether to me, or to a third party - it falls under “business activity” and any injuries, losses, etc. would not be covered under my current policy (I could add a ‘short term rental endorsement’ - but that won’t be necessary for me since I don’t use sitters, I just am one)
It is just something worth looking into for anyone who assumed their insurance would still cover any issues in light of the new booking fees, particularly if the sitter gets use of the car too. (The same agency covers my car and said they would absolutely NOT cover any damages caused by a sitter who had paid a fee for that particular sit. Everyone’s situation will be different)
1 Like
Interesting.
I wonder whether this would also affect pet parents who rent their home from a landlord, rather than own it outright/mortgaged themselves - tenancy agreements often include clauses which would restrict a tenant from using the property for any sort of ‘business activity’.
Likewise, leasehold properties are usually governed by a headlease which often includes a similar clause. It would even be worth considering whether using a mortgaged property for ‘business activity’ puts mortgagees in breach of the contract they have with their lender.
1 Like