Just some thought on how people deal with hauntings and how to protect your investment and home.

It isn't that easy just to sell or leave how would you do it?

Very good question Angel. In my state if a home owner puts their house on the market, they are mandated to disclose the fact it was or is haunted. It's up to the buyer to decide whether to buy it or not. Many times people want a haunted house to live in, as they find it exciting and actually its said haunted houses sell for more money. I believe home owners insurance would cover an damage in the home, but how would anyone explain that to their agent? If I owned this house, and wanted to sell, I would have everyone vacate the property and have the entire house exorcised and blessed, as well as the land, before selling. It wouldnt be fair to let someone new live with our old problems. But again, I would have to dislose it just the same. I think these days people dont have to up and leave due to hauntings, because of the amount of PI teams out there, and all the paranormal shows on TV, most know they can get help in order to remain living there. JN

You rent... your options are easier than when you own!!! When you rent you can just move and find another place, but when you own its far more difficult and people have money invested in their property etc... I am really thinking about protecting peoples interests from the unknown or unforeseen circumstances.

Insurance companies would have a field day raising rates with something like this
especially since it can't be proven in court ( the whole thing would be a mess)

I answered NO to both . simply becasue it wouldnt work. we all know how hard it is too prove you have a haunting. geez i couldnt even prove to you lot that i've seen spirits here how would I go about proving it too an insurance company

I voted No and No..

I'd be concerned if it took off or became mainstream type insurance, that it would contribute towards the slippery slope I outlined in the P.I thread I know that insurance can be found for the oddest things, but if home owners took such insurance because they believed their property to be haunted or at risk, where would it leave the P.I's going into these kind of homes? How would that stand with the insurance companies?

Would insurance companies start recruiting their very own P.I teams to estimate/decide claims as they do with weather, natural and fire related claims? Would this commercial side of business be damaging for the true field of study and research? If companies intended to use their own PI teams would it require an organisation/body to regulate them too? ,... would that lead to everything paranormal becoming risk accessed, controlled and regulated ?

I said no to both. I lived in a active home, luckily I was not buying it..and if I were, I would have been very upset I was not warned, it tramatized me so badly, I nealry had a nervouse breakdown. Things happened so freqently there, that some who would come in not even aware of it past would have something happen to them, or see something with one or more person at the same time. I am talking about very active homes tho..like this one. I moved!! Thanks for sharing.

I also voted no on both of them. It happens, and where can one move to, that that too might be haunted. I find it so inconsistent, that how can you tell if it is haunted, and then nothing happens for years. Or nothing has happened to make you think your house is not haunted, and then walk right into a bonified apparition in your bedroom! You cannot really prove that damage or theft of property was done by a ghost. Sometimes hauntings turn out to be a good thing, from what I have read. I have read about some hauntings of very helpful and friendly ghosts, who even have helped the homeowners. It's too ambigious to really place insurance figures on. Heck, isn't in certain circumstance, actual natural situations are not even covered? Why should hauntings?
I have heard that in some states the homeowner has to divulge information about their house being haunted. When my husband and I were looking at houses, and one we were looking at, I curiously asked if the lady who use to own it die in the house, our real estate agent couldn't answer the question. I think he is not suppose to. *Shrugs*

This is true... insurance companies don't like to part with anything unless they have substantial proof... but it seems sad when someone has put all their money into a home and they cannot relax in it (hypothetically speaking)

I agree, but I do believe there should be some sort of protection from these sort of problems occuring after all it's not the home owners fault.

PI's would have a ligit job and get paid for it... and people would take it more seriously I believe!

Me too I have activity every night nearly, but its not scary or anything... It was just a thought on how would people deal with it if the haunting got out of hand and the house that anyone owned becomes inhabitable... The homeowner losses his house ect... How would you resolve it?

I believe it NY... Not a bad idea I don't think, sort of protecting your own interests so to speak. It doesn't bother me anyone dying in the house as long as they don't come back and haunt it Then again you have to look at the land also.

Yes I do rent, but the house is in a trust fund for my sons, so when my ex passes the house then becomes theirs, and I can stay here forever, but I dont want to. IF I owned it thats what I would do, but even renting I cant move cause it follows, so some cant win either way. The Dutch Colonial I owned back in the 80's was highly haunted to the point I was forced to sell in less than a year. The agent did not disclose to us that it was haunted, but I did when I sold it, and it was only on the market a few days and got a great offer, but its been sold and bought ever since. That was the most beautful home on the street and I loved it, and invested alot so we could live in a great neighborhood, with good schools. It got so bad none of us could sleep, never mind have peace of mind. But I dont think insurance companies care about hauntings or those who have mortgages. All they care about is collecting their money every month. I dont think we can put a price on feeling safe in our own home. JN

I agree with Anvil. Also, if something like this did end up happening, there would be so many factors. What if you were a medium, would you have to disclose that and pay more? What if you used a ouija board and the house became haunted that way, would it be your responsibility? What if you bought a piece of jewelry or furniture and something came in attached to that, would you be responsible? What if you got rid of it and the haunting stayed? Would it still be your responsibility? What if someone living with you died, or an electrician got electrocuted... er changing a lightbulb? Your fault? Too many "ifs". The insurance forms would be thicker than the King James Bible.

I find it hard to imagine it being any "law" or "mandate" to disclose a haunting.

This is like having "Alien abduction" insurance.

Do insurance companies still call tornadoes "acts of god?" if so they would probably class "hauntings"
the same way (save themselves money in court)

You may find it hard to imagine but it is a State Law where I live and other states in the US such as NY and FL..JN

Yes tornadoes and Hurricanes. I guess if you had a horrible evil haunting and your home was damaged, it would be classified as a vandalism? Thats all I could think of..JN

Ditto for NY. Except the way it's worded is that if the house is "known" to be haunted. If you don't know it's haunted or don't officially label it as haunted it doesn't apply.

I have just skipped to the end (I will go back and read everyones posts however) because I think this is such a brilliant and novel idea. I doubt seriously if there would be a mass outcrying for the service, but it would certainly garner some customers if it was marketed as a novelty add on for a very small premium. My fathers house is actually insured in the event a meteorite strikes it. I've noticed a recent car insurance company is offering to cover your pet, as a part of your automobile insurance package, and at no extra charge. The iidea that someone would insure you against any future haunting possibilities, or maybe home invasion from vampire, or interior documented poltergeist damage...well, I think there are plenty of people that would toss on an extra $5 or so a month for the coverage and conversation piece. Great idea! I want in! ~Jackal

I just want it known that I said yes in agreement with a NOVELTY attachment. For fun. Not for litigation.

So what exactly would this "ghost insurance" pay for?

Your home owners insurance typically pays for repairs to your house (with many limitations and deductables too I would remind you of), fire, theft, and some liability.

What would haunting insurance pay for? To whom would it pay? How would it be proven?

I would have to research this, but I heard the same thing about my state, that a person is obligated to disclose a haunting before the sale or rental of real property. But like I said, I would have to investigate it to find out. Why don't you ask eric. he's a realestate tycoon in Texas.

Right, and they also must disclose if anyone was murdered or died on that property or in the house..JN

Would be a tad embarrassing walking into your Realtor's Office and tell him a ghost got into your home, scared the cat, made your baby cry, and broke a bunch of dishes. I would say again, I would just use vandalism..I have renters insurance, but have not had to use it (YET) LOL...JN

To your knowledge. If you don't know you can't say.

But people can know, because I would never buy a home now without researching it, and its history. I know what this house holds, and whats happened, and never would have moved in if I knew what the furture held in store for us..JN

JN, I just got your message

And if you decide to sell your house, I would emphasize the haunting, and I would be willing to bet you would fetch a higher price from the right party.

A well known haunting can lower home values, so depending on the state, the realtors usually need to disclose it as it's considered a "stigmatized property" (google that term for more or visit the wiki). Same goes for a murder in the home, and often even just a recent death.

Oh I agree. But you know as well as I, for everything, there is a market. And there are people out there that would pay top dollar for a genuine haunted house. Of course proving the house is haunted would be the glitch. There tend to be an entire seperate category for haunted items on ebay. lol. People are fascinated with the macabre, and the morose. However, with me, the connotations associated with a mere dead body are of stink, and fluids, rigidity, etc. Nothing with a paranormal ring to it. Just gross. lol. That I wouldn't pay for. A bonified haunting is another matter, however. ~Jackal

I guess it would have to be proven that the HOUSE was haunted. In JN's case, she says it follows her, so how can it be proven that it is the house and not the residents that is haunted?

What kind of insurance coverage would this provide? Would it cover the cost of moving? Pain and suffering? Fear? I just don't see it, sorry. Unless this went under an insurance clause of *Unknown or unexplainable occurrences that lead to the house being uninhabitable* I think this would be an impossible insurance to collect on.

Buyer beware comes to mind. Which goes hand in hand with the laws that state it must be disclosed if the house is known to be haunted or if someone died in the home IF the buyer asks.

I agree with that as well, that's why I said it can lower home values. Occasionally people will use it as a marketing tool, in old historic areas, especially if something nationally famous happened there. The post was for those who didn't believe a haunting could be cause for a buyer to sue.

So, after looking over the real estate rules and regs, it's a "stigmatized" home, not a "haunted" home that requires disclosure. And even then, it's murky at best. Just because someone died in a home, or even murder was committed in it, it does not always lead to reports of hauntings. It's really just a law to prevent people from selling notorious homes, or homes that are famous for reasons other than architecturally.

You can prove a home is stigmatized, not haunted.

Good find! And makes sense.

I voted no to both for one reason If my house was haunted I would either live with it or remove it if it was a threat. As it has been said it could not be proven to insurance companies and if it was they would probably call it an act of god and not pay out anyway but the one guarantee you can have is it will put the premium up.

You can't research some things. Sure if a violent crime happened there, maybe. But natural death happens everyday in homes all over. You have no way of knowing that Great Aunt Fanny passed away in the upstairs bedroom or that the first husband tripped coming down the stairs and broke his neck. Criminal and accident records just aren't organized that way.

And then there's actual death and declared death. People will pass in the house but are declared dead or DOA on the way to the hospital so the location of death is logged as the ambulance or the ER, not the home.

Very valid points MP..So, what would be a true cause NOT to buy a home. I would say if someone was murdered/killed in or about the home. A person dying of natural causes in the home, would probably only get minimal activity if any at all, or residual. But violent deaths seem to cause violent hauntings..JN

Exactly. In short, if there are rumors that the house is haunted, it can qualify as a stigmatized home because others in that area may shy away from buying it in the future. It's not the haunting directly, it's the negative connotations associated with the home when people start talking about it.

Sometimes the deeds to the house discloses information about transference due to death in home. It depends on how old the deed is whether they go into that kind of detail. Also you get all prior home owners of the location "based on the deed", then do an archive research on their deaths. Also based on the deeds you can interview historians, or family in themselves. In a small community this is easier, however in a larger city it can still be done.

Just depends on how much research you are willing to do and how deep you are going to go.

That's true, althought transfer at death doesn't mean the prior owner actually died on location.

I don't think too many people are going to dig sooooo deep into the background of your average home.

no & no
That is silly, and opens insurance companies up for even more fraud.

How in the wide world could I possibly prove to the insurance company that I see spooks coming out of my bedroom mirror at night? They're certainly not going to financially reward me just on my saying so.

Moreover, insurance companies routinely deny claims if they can demonstrate "pre-existing conditions." So any residence possessing a history of spectral phenomena certainly does have a "pre-existing condition"!

Ok, I haven't read this whole thread so I'm probably parroting someone else's response... but there's no way this would happen.

This would open up either the insurance company or the insured for fraud. This is simply because a haunting has not been scientifically proven without a reasonable doubt (sound familiar?). More likely than not, the insurance company would not cover any losses attempted to be fraudulently claimed (or not?) under the premise of this coverage. This would not hold up in any court and, I'm no attorney, but I'm pretty sure any contract detailing such terms would be non-binding right off the bat.

Perhaps one day hauntings will be proven beyond second-hand folklore and we will be able to make money off such things. If it were to exist you can undoubtedly expect higher premiums. Not to worry though, fantasy and reality maintain their boundaries... for now atleast.

In your favor, a pre-existing condition of the sort would be impossible to prove in a court of law. Regardless, however, the claim would likewise be unsupported by substantial evidence.

insurance companies won't cover acts of God, they sure are not going to cover acts of some minor spook. by the way, some insurance companies do cover acts of God......for a price..

It's interesting you say that. When I hear my co-worker explain comprehensive auto coverage to clients, he describes it as covering "acts of God"; such as a tree limb falling or hail damage, etc... things out of our hands. I think he phrases it that way because it's an explaination most people relate with. I could have sworn I remember it being explained in our policies that way as well, but I just double checked and it doesn't. As far as homeowner's goes, things like hail and wind damage (acts of God?) are usually covered... atleast in New York State, can't speak for anywhere else. No insurance for the dishes Casper throws accross the room though