With $875 billion in commercial real estate loans coming due in 2026 — 17% of the total $5 trillion in outstanding commercial mortgages1 — lenders are examining borrowers’ insurance programs to confirm borrowers are not holding property in case of an incident or major loss that disrupts the borrower’s ability to repay.
The increase in commercial real estate (CRE) insurance lender scrutiny can create real challenges in procuring coverage that’s both adequate and affordable. However, real estate investors have several tools at their disposal to navigate this environment and strategically address lender requirements.
Why are there stricter lender insurance requirements?
Lenders want to make loans, not own real estate. Real estate investors and owners who suffer a major uninsured loss may not be able to service their debt, leaving the lender holding an asset it never wanted. With loans coming due, owners may have an outdated insurance-to-value ratio on their commercial real estate, prompting lenders to ask for adjustments.
At the same time, 135 “nuclear verdicts” (a jury verdict of $10 million or more) in liability cases resulted in damages exceeding $31 billion in 2024, and the real estate industry has not been spared.2
In response, lenders are hiring outside consultants to review insurance programs, cross-check named insureds across endorsements and question the overall adequacy of coverage, often demanding lower deductibles in the process.
The result is that lenders may make requirements that do not align with market realities. For example, in a common triple-net (NNN) lease, the tenant is responsible for purchasing property insurance. But lenders may require the owner or landlord to carry the same coverage, resulting in both the investor and the tenant carrying property insurance.
In addition, standard commercial property deductibles run $25,000 to $50,000, but lenders may want lower deductibles — and underwriters often won’t sell coverage with lower ones.
Blanket programs covering multiple properties face additional scrutiny, with lenders running their own replacement cost estimates and arriving at requirements that can diverge significantly from what the market will support.
