MIXED-USE PROPERTY CASE STUDY
Mixed-Use with Medical Tenancy
A 1910s double-brick building on Sydney's Lower North Shore with an allied health practice downstairs and residential above. Non-renewed by their previous insurer.
THE SITUATION
The owner of a 1910s double-brick building on Sydney's Lower North Shore received a non-renewal notice from their existing insurer. The building had an allied health practice operating on the ground floor with residential tenancies above.
Non-renewals in mixed-use are increasingly common. Insurers tighten their appetite, and buildings that were previously covered suddenly find themselves without options at renewal time.
The owner had limited time before their existing policy lapsed and needed to find replacement cover quickly. Seven insurers declined before they came to us.
OUR APPROACH
Time was the critical factor here. With a non-renewal, there's a hard deadline. We prioritised speed without cutting corners on the submission quality.
- Existing policy review: We reviewed their expiring policy to understand what they'd had in place and identify any gaps
- Targeted submissions: Rather than blanket-marketing the risk, we went directly to underwriters we knew had appetite for medical-tenancy mixed-use buildings
- Building presentation: We highlighted the 1910s double-brick construction as a positive - solid builds with proven track records, not a liability
Allied health practices are actually a relatively low-risk commercial tenancy compared to food or hospitality. The challenge was finding underwriters who would look past the mixed-use classification to assess the actual risk.
THE CHALLENGES
The 1910s construction was a factor for several underwriters. Older buildings carry assumptions about wiring, plumbing, and fire separation that may or may not reflect reality. We addressed this by providing updated compliance information where available.
The non-renewal itself was also a challenge. Some underwriters view a non-renewal as a red flag, even when the reason was simply the previous insurer tightening their appetite rather than any issue with the property or claims history.
THE OUTCOME
We placed cover at approximately $12,800, saving the owner around $3,600 compared to what they'd been paying with their previous insurer.
Not only did we find replacement cover before the expiring policy lapsed, but we actually improved the owner's position - lower premium with comprehensive terms covering the building, public liability, and loss of rent.
This is a common outcome when we re-market mixed-use properties. The previous insurer's pricing often doesn't reflect what the specialist market can offer.
More Case Studies
All case studiesHeritage Mixed-Use with Hospitality Tenancy
1920s heritage building with cafe and residential tenants. Came to us uninsured after 8 declines.
Read case study Mixed-Use PropertyMulti-Level Mixed-Use with Wellness Tenants
Beauty and wellness retail with residential above. Non-renewed. Placed at ~$5,900 vs around $22,500 from another insurer.
Read case study Mixed-Use PropertyThree-Tenancy Mixed-Use with Boarding House
1910s building with food retail, apartment, and boarding house. 11 insurers declined.
Read case studyBeen non-renewed on your mixed-use property?
Non-renewals don't mean uninsurable. We regularly place cover for properties the standard market has stepped back from. Talk to us before your policy lapses.