Which of the following can be a consequence of not having property insurance?

Lacking property insurance can lead to significant financial repercussions, which is encapsulated in the selected consequence of financial burden in case of accidents. Property insurance acts as a safety net, protecting property owners from the costs associated with damage or loss due to various events such as fires, thefts, or natural disasters. Without this coverage, individuals would need to cover the full cost of repairs or replacements out of pocket, which can be financially devastating, especially if the loss is substantial.

In contrast, the other options highlight benefits or protections that are either not relevant to the absence of property insurance or are inaccurately framed. For instance, there is no guarantee of income during a loss without insurance; instead, landlords or homeowners may face ongoing costs without financial support. Increased property value could occur for various reasons unrelated to insurance, and liability protection for visitors is specifically a function provided by liability coverage, which needs to be included in an insurance policy to be effective. Thus, the absence of property insurance can leave an individual vulnerable to significant economic strain, making the choice of financial burden in case of accidents a clear consequence of lacking such coverage.