Phil Addison wrote:


I am querying the whole basis of the idea that the insurance should be
based on the need to re-build. I want to know why we can't be insured
just sufficient to be able to buy a similar replacement home.

If "we" own the house outright, such a decision is ours to make. But
most "homeowners" have a mortgage, and the mortgage provider wants very
much to cover their backside, which they see as meaning that in the
event of a total loss, a property with no less than the existing one's
full resale value will appear in place of the smoking heap. (They would,
I presume, argue that even if the outstanding mortgage was only, say,
30% of that value, their lending criteria had given that mortgage on the
basis of covering a particular proportion of the purchase cost, and
you'd be nadgering their carefully-constructed risk-of-nonrepayment
profile if you put up a yurt in place of the elegant Georgian pile.
Though if they got their outstanding mortgage repaid, I don't see it's
any business of theirs what your future housing derangements might be...)

Stefek