If a fire and extended coverage policy has been effective for less than 60 days, which reason is NOT valid for cancellation by the insurer?

In the context of a fire and extended coverage policy effective for less than 60 days, the insurer generally has the right to cancel the policy for specific valid reasons supported by insurance regulations.

Cancellation for non-payment of premium is a standard practice among insurers and is clearly established in policy terms. This ensures that the insurance provider receives the necessary premium to maintain coverage, making it a valid reason for cancellation.

Material misrepresentation on the application is also a legitimate reason for cancellation. When a policyholder provides incorrect or misleading information during the application process, it can affect the insurer's risk assessment and underwriting decisions. Thus, if misrepresentation is discovered, cancellation is justifiable.

However, when a policyholder moves to another state, it does not typically provide a valid basis for cancellation within this timeframe. This is because most policies are designed to offer coverage regardless of the insured's relocation, provided they inform the insurer and comply with any new state regulations concerning coverage.

In contrast, filing multiple claims may raise red flags about the risk associated with the insured, even within the first 60 days, which can justify cancellation. Therefore, the assertion that having more than one claim filed is NOT a valid reason for cancellation is inaccurate; insurers often assess claims frequency as part of their