When Real Estate Owners Should Minimize Coverage vs. Maximize Risk Transfer

For most real estate owners, insurance is treated as a necessary operating expense—something to be negotiated annually, ideally pushed as low as possible, and then forgotten. That mindset misses a much larger opportunity.

In reality, insurance is a capital strategy decision. The “right” insurance structure depends less on risk tolerance and more on what the owner is trying to accomplish next—selling an asset, refinancing, or holding long-term.

Understanding when to minimize premiums and when to transfer as much risk as possible can materially impact valuation, deal execution, and long-term portfolio performance.

This article explains:

• When minimizing insurance premiums increases asset value
• When transferring risk protects enterprise value instead
• How insurance impacts NOI, valuation, and deal execution
• Why selling and refinancing demand different coverage decisions
• How owners can align insurance with ownership strategy

---------------------------------------------------------

The Fundamental Tradeoff

Every insurance decision sits between two competing objectives:

• Maximize short-term cash flow and NOI
• Protect long-term asset and enterprise value

Neither approach is universally correct. The optimal structure depends on the owner’s phase of ownership and capital timeline.

---------------------------------------------------------

When It Makes Sense to Reduce Premiums and Strip Coverage

Reducing premiums—by increasing deductibles, tightening limits, or removing non-essential coverage—can be a rational and value-enhancing move in the right context.

Pre-Sale Optimization

This is the most common and most defensible scenario.

When an owner is preparing to sell an asset, the primary objective is often to maximize trailing NOI, which directly drives valuation. Insurance premiums flow through operating expenses, and buyers typically underwrite the last twelve months of performance.

A reduction in insurance expense can have an outsized impact on value. For example, a $100,000 reduction in annual premium can translate into $1.5–$2.0 million or more in incremental value at a 5–6% cap rate.

In this context:

• Buyers will re-shop insurance post-close
• The seller is monetizing short-term certainty
• Long-term risk is effectively transferred to the buyer

Common strategies include:

• Increasing property deductibles (e.g., from $25,000 to $100,000+)
• Accepting wind or hail sublimits where lender requirements allow
• Removing “nice-to-have” endorsements
• Pushing retentions higher on general liability and umbrella programs

Here, insurance is treated as a temporary operating decision, not a permanent risk posture.

Short-Term Hold or Known Exit Window

When an owner has a defined exit horizon—often 12 to 36 months—minimizing insurance cost can make sense, particularly for stabilized assets with strong loss histories.

In this scenario, the owner is consciously choosing to:

• Retain more frequency risk
• Improve interim cash flow
• Accept limited downside exposure over a short period

This approach works best when:

• The asset is well-maintained and operationally stable
• The owner has sufficient liquidity to absorb a deductible loss
• The property is not located in a severe catastrophe zone

It is a calculated tradeoff, not a blanket cost-cutting exercise.

Refinancing Focused on DSCR, Not Coverage Breadth

Some refinancing events—particularly with less conservative lenders—focus primarily on debt service coverage ratio and compliance with basic insurance requirements.

When lenders are not deeply scrutinizing coverage structure beyond minimum limits and endorsements, reducing premiums can improve DSCR and potentially loan proceeds.

That said, this is highly lender-specific. Life companies, agencies, and CMBS lenders often take a much more conservative view.

---------------------------------------------------------

When It Makes Sense to Maximize Risk Transfer

In other situations, minimizing insurance cost is the wrong objective entirely. When the focus shifts to enterprise value, stability, and execution certainty, transferring risk becomes far more important.

Long-Term Hold Strategies

For owners with long-term or perpetual hold strategies, insurance is less about annual expense control and more about volatility reduction.

Over a 10–20 year horizon:

• Severity events matter far more than premium savings
• A single uninsured or underinsured loss can erase years of NOI
• Stability supports portfolio performance through cycles

Institutional owners, family offices, and portfolio investors tend to favor broader coverage, lower deductibles, and more conservative structures for this reason.

Refinancing with Institutional or Conservative Capital

In refinancings involving agency lenders, life companies, or CMBS executions, insurance becomes part of deal execution risk.

Thin or aggressive coverage structures can:

• Delay closings
• Trigger lender pushback
• Reduce proceeds or increase scrutiny at the worst possible time

In these transactions, insurance is not just a compliance item—it’s a credibility signal.

Assets with Binary or Catastrophic Risk

Certain asset classes and geographies carry risks that are not incremental but binary—wind, flood, wildfire, or habitational liability being prime examples.

Underinsuring these exposures may improve short-term NOI, but it can also:

• Impair liquidity after a loss
• Stall a sale or refinance
• Force capital calls or lender intervention

In these cases, robust risk transfer protects not just cash flow, but optionality.

---------------------------------------------------------

Selling vs. Refinancing: A Critical Distinction

A key insight for owners is that selling and refinancing demand different insurance strategies.

• Selling:
  Insurance is an operating expense. Short-term NOI optimization often makes sense because the risk transfers at closing.
• Refinancing:
  The owner keeps the risk. Coverage decisions follow the asset beyond the transaction and directly affect lender confidence and future flexibility.

Conflating the two is one of the most common—and costly—mistakes owners make.

The Advisor’s Role: Where Real Value Is Created

Most insurance conversations revolve around price. That’s table stakes.

Real value is created when insurance is aligned with:

• Capital events
• Ownership timelines
• Lender expectations
• Portfolio-level risk tolerance

In other words, insurance should be intentional, not default.

The right question is not “How do we get this premium lower?”
It’s “What risk posture best supports what we’re trying to accomplish next?”

When insurance decisions are made through that lens, they stop being a cost—and start becoming a strategic advantage.