insurance on a vacant tower mid-conversion, what actually covers it

Question

I manage stabilized apartments, and an owner group has asked me to take on a converted office building post-completion. Reading their construction-period documents to understand what I'm inheriting, and the insurance section is the part I don't have a framework for.

During the 20 month construction window this is a building with no occupants, floors stripped to structure, and an existing frame worth a lot of money sitting inside the work. Their policy schedule lists a builder's risk policy with the existing structure listed at a value well below what they paid for the building. There's also a note about a vacancy provision in the property policy that was in place before construction started.

What should I be looking for here? Specifically what covers the existing frame if the thing burns at month 14, and does a code change during construction get covered or does the owner eat the upgrade?

Rena Expert · Accepted Answer

The existing frame is the crux and it's handled differently by different carriers. A builder's risk policy, sometimes sold as course of construction, is written to cover the work in progress. Whether the pre-existing structure is covered depends on whether it was scheduled onto that policy as an insured value, or left on a separate property policy, or excluded altogether. If they listed the existing structure well below what they paid, find out whether that number was meant to be replacement cost of the frame and shell or something else, and whether the policy has a coinsurance clause that would penalize the claim for underreporting. A loss at month 14 involving both completed work and the original frame across two policies is exactly where gaps show up.

The vacancy provision matters before construction starts and sometimes during pauses. Standard property forms cut back or exclude certain perils once a building has been vacant beyond a stated period, commonly 60 days, and vandalism and water damage are usually the first to go. Owners of empty office buildings often need a specific vacant building endorsement or a separate vacancy policy to bridge from acquisition to construction start. Forms and available endorsements differ by carrier and state filings, so get the actual policy language rather than the certificate.

On your code question, that's ordinance or law coverage, and on a reuse project it's more important than on new construction because a mid-project code change or a partial loss can trigger a requirement to upgrade the undamaged portion. It's typically sold in parts covering demolition of the undamaged remainder, the increased cost of construction to current code, and the loss of value of the undamaged part. Absent it, the owner funds the upgrade.

Two more items to pull: soft cost and delay coverage, since a fire that adds nine months adds interest carry and fees that the hard cost limit won't touch, and how abatement work is treated, because pollution and asbestos exclusions frequently sit on both the builder's risk and the liability side. Have their broker confirm all of it in writing.

mitchell_ray4 · Answer

The asbestos point is the one that bites. Once abatement is underway you have a contractor disturbing regulated material, and the general liability the GC carries usually excludes it, so there should be a separate contractors pollution liability policy naming the abatement sub. Ask to see it, not a certificate summary.

tashaford30 · Answer

Is the lender's requirement usually stricter than what the owner would buy on their own? I'd have assumed the construction lender dictates most of this.

Rena Guide · Answer

To fill in the plain meanings for anyone reading along.

Builder's risk is a temporary property policy covering a building while it's under construction. It covers the materials and the work as it goes up, and it ends when the project is finished or occupied, at which point a normal property policy takes over. On a conversion there's a second question that doesn't exist in new construction, which is who covers the building that was already standing there.

Ordinance or law coverage deals with the fact that building codes change. If an old building suffers a loss, the local authority may require the repair to meet today's code, and may require undamaged parts to be brought up to code as well. A standard policy pays to restore what was there. Ordinance or law coverage pays the extra cost of complying with the current code, and it's usually sold in separate pieces with separate limits.

@quill lenders do impose insurance requirements in the loan documents, and on construction loans those requirements are often detailed. They protect the lender's collateral, which overlaps with the owner's interest without being identical, so an owner can satisfy a lender and still have exposure. Requirements for contractor licensing and for certain coverages also vary by state, so the specifics have to be confirmed with a licensed broker in the state where the building sits.

aaron_fitz10 · Answer

Twenty months with no rent coming in and a full insurance program running. Does anyone publish what that carry costs per square foot? It feels like a line people gloss over.

renee_dubois · Answer

@kestrel not comparable at my scale, but even on a small building the insurance quote jumped when I told the carrier a unit would be empty during a gut. Vacancy is priced as a risk on its own. On a whole tower for 20 months I'd expect the premium to be a serious number, and it doesn't stop if the project stalls.

luis_carrera · Answer

@trellis the item I'd want in writing before I signed a management agreement is who insures the building during the handoff, between substantial completion and your first residents. Builder's risk ends on some defined trigger and the permanent property policy starts on another, and those dates don't always meet.

insurance on a vacant tower mid-conversion, what actually covers it

7 replies