Over the past year my parents have been reviewing their existing insurance policies (Allstate and State Farm) and have been reducing their costs by using a broker and other insurers. So far so good.
The last policy to be reviewed/replaced is a standalone policy for the cottage. Their broker has recommended consolidating the cottage coverage on their home policy. I had never heard of such a thing, so have been researching it and the coverage is called 'seasonal or secondary property'. The Insurance Bureau of Canada covers Recreational Properties and has a brochure, Protecting Your HOME AWAY FROM HOME that covers the high level details.
Neither gets into too much detail about the pros/cons of consolidated versus stand-alone policies, instead they suggest talking to the broker. Duh! Clearly consolidation should provide some cost savings as things like third-party liability coverage would be shared rather than duplicated on each policy.Insurance Bureau of Canada brochure wrote:You can include your vacation property on your home insurance as a “secondary” or “seasonal” location, or you can insure it separately
Based on the broker's recommendation and from my quick read/review of the materials we are considering consolidating the cottage coverage on the house insurance policy, but I'm left to wonder if there are any significant downsides to this approach. If coverages are separate, then I would assume a claim on one policy wouldn't impact the future rates of the other policy. With consolidated coverage, it isn't clear if this still is the case.
Does anyone have any experience with adding a seasonal or secondary property to their house insurance policy and are there any reasons not to consolidate with this coverage?
Thanks in advance.