Three-Tenancy Mixed-Use with Boarding House

This one was complex. A 1910s building in Inner Sydney with three distinct tenancy types: food retail on the ground floor, a residential apartment, and a boarding house component. The owner came to us after struggling to find cover and needing a broker with specialist market access.

Eleven insurers had already declined. The combination of food retail (with its fire exposure), a boarding house (which most insurers exclude entirely), and the building's age made this one of the harder placements we'd seen.

Boarding houses sit in a difficult space for underwriters. The transient nature of occupants, shared facilities, and regulatory requirements around fire safety and habitability standards create a risk profile that mainstream insurers avoid.

With 11 declines already on the table, we knew this wasn't going to be placed through standard channels. We went straight to specialist underwriting agencies with known appetite for complex mixed-use risks.

• Tenancy documentation: We gathered detailed information on each tenancy type, including the boarding house registration, fire safety compliance certificates, and the food retail tenant's cooking equipment and extraction systems
• Risk segmentation: We presented each tenancy as a distinct risk within the submission, showing underwriters exactly what they were pricing for each component
• Compliance evidence: Boarding house compliance documentation was critical. We made sure council registration and fire safety statements were front and centre

The boarding house element was the primary obstacle. Most insurers have a blanket exclusion for boarding houses. Even specialist markets approach them cautiously because the liability exposure and fire risk are elevated compared to standard residential tenancies.

The food retail tenancy added a second layer of complexity. Commercial kitchens in older buildings without modern fire separation are a concern for underwriters. We needed to demonstrate that adequate fire safety measures were in place.

Eleven declines is a lot. Each decline makes the next approach slightly harder because underwriters ask what's already been tried. We had to be strategic about which markets to approach and in what order.

We placed comprehensive cover at around $7,000 annual premium through a specialist underwriting agency.

After 11 declines, the owner now has proper cover in place. A viable mixed-use property insurance solution where specialist market access made the difference.