AAMI for landlord insurance??
- Thread starter MelbGal
- Start date
Which Company? Peter
What he said!
Sorry to hear of your experience Peter. Let's all learn from this. Now you know why it's only $250.
That's quite right and about the only place you will get these covered, we do the same thing (RentCover). They're not always completely straight forward but at the risk of sounding like a broken record, a policy including Accidental Damage will cover a lot more damage circumstances than one that only includes Malicious Damage, or for that matter Deliberate and/or Intentional damage.
Rant over, time for cup of tea, keep saying, let go of the rage, let go of the rage, etc.....
Peter
Nice rant Peter, I trust it feels a little better
Nice rant Peter, I trust it feels a little better
Hi Brett.
It feels better to let others learn from my cost and frustrations.
Happy to recommend EBM. Your support of SS via detailed explanations here are gold.
Peter
Yes, I was out when i read your reply and I thought "how did i get caught"?
Well I had some very good long term tenants ( like 10 years) here and there and got lulled in to a false sense of security. But the "circle of life" means bad follows good and then I had a shocking run.
By number three I was ready to do battle with AAMI but to be frank, the organisation itself is bordering on dysfunctional. For reasons of privacy, liability I cannot go into it here but I can say even their own preferred tradesmen think the same re the systems suck etc...
I know Insurance invites Fraudsters but when a Tenant is court evicted and the Dude punches holes in walls in front to REA and Police and then Assaults the Policeman, to me, that is an open and shut case. Dont argue the carpet marks and smashed blinds, etc.. is wear and tear.
I did gain satisfaction in my REA reply to my question: if needed would Police provide statement re the holes he did in front of them. Yes, except the last one nearest the door, that was his head being shoved through by the Copper as he was arrested for going him!!!
Ahhhh, Peter
An interesting story. As a side, I had a similar situation... an aggressive tenant was arguing with police about 'how they can't trespass on his land' as he stood behind the backyard gate.
The police showed him they can if they need to... I found out 6-10 months later the gate was damaged during this event - $300 gate repair to landlord thank you! (initially reported as 'wear and tear' by the tenant and new PM).
I always wondered on those cop shows who ends up paying for the busted in doors and so forth, especially if the person turns out to be innocent?
The police showed him they can if they need to... I found out 6-10 months later the gate was damaged during this event - $300 gate repair to landlord thank you! (initially reported as 'wear and tear' by the tenant and new PM).
I always wondered on those cop shows who ends up paying for the busted in doors and so forth, especially if the person turns out to be innocent?
We get caught because we reasonably believe that businesses should do what they promise to do. You should see the 'customer charter' slip they include in their premium renewals... it's a joke! Obviously advertising is a better investment for them rather than having good claims processing staff!
The problem with the insurance market is the lack of information. No-one really knows if a company will pay out when they need them. I did look once into creating a review website for this purpose however I'm sure I'd be getting a call from their lawyers if it ever took off. I guess we just have to rely on our own experiences and asking around.
What you're saying is so very true. A lot of our business is done via property management companies, and we have always believed that our greatest advocates were those that had the most claims. Not that every claim is a prefect result for all parties, that's the nature of insurance, but once someone is involved with enough claims they get a pretty good idea of what the claims process is and how "fair" the company is to deal with.
I would say that for at least 15 of the 20+ years I've been involved we've termed RentCover as a "claims driven" policy, as long as we keep the loss ratio at an acceptable level, the more claims the better, because that's where you create your "raving fans".
So I read this as they are unwritten by QBE? Peter
That's right, yes.
We have finally been landed with some of the above 26th parallel premium increases, although in saying that in most of the checking we've done we have been extremely competitive, to the point of cheap, but there could be exceptions particularly with older properties.
Would you mind private messaging me the details, I'm interested to know why you couldn't get a quote online (I've actually been working on this myself) and thought I had everything working (unless it's a refer for some reason).
I would appreciate your help, it's been an arduous task getting it up.
Brett,
1. I recently tried making a claim through a policy I had with "xxx" as the tenants child decided to have a fighting match with a marker through my properties hallway which I only got freshly painted 8 months ago, wouldn't this be covered under "tenant neglect"?? It was the tenants young child but xxx did not want apart of it!
2. I actually made an enquiry with EBM today and I was asked if my tenant is "on" a lease... What exactly does "on" a lease mean? Is on a lease referring to if my tenants signed a lease when they moved in initially (been there nearly 2 years now) or are on a "fixed term" lease? If their lease has not been renewed to a fix term but is still on a continuing basis am I still covered?
Sorry, this question didn't actually sink in until now and it has me concerned what the interpretation of "on" a lease actually means??
1. I recently tried making a claim through a policy I had with "xxx" as the tenants child decided to have a fighting match with a marker through my properties hallway which I only got freshly painted 8 months ago, wouldn't this be covered under "tenant neglect"?? It was the tenants young child but xxx did not want apart of it!
2. I actually made an enquiry with EBM today and I was asked if my tenant is "on" a lease... What exactly does "on" a lease mean? Is on a lease referring to if my tenants signed a lease when they moved in initially (been there nearly 2 years now) or are on a "fixed term" lease? If their lease has not been renewed to a fix term but is still on a continuing basis am I still covered?
Sorry, this question didn't actually sink in until now and it has me concerned what the interpretation of "on" a lease actually means??
Hi Nikki
1. Most policies will not pay claims for "tenant neglect", or certainly not that wording anyway. Damage such as you have described will most likely only be covered under a policy that includes "accidental damage". This is something I have mentioned in numerous threads.
The different types of damage that landlord policies often include are:
Malicious Damage - generall needs a police report and you need to prove "malicious intent" with the sole purpose being to cause the damage. Covered under most policies but can be hard to prove. By the way, a child under 12 cannot usually be classed as having caused Malicious Damage because of their age.
Deliberate & Intententional Damage - better than having only Malicious, may allow for someone that did something deliberately (such as painting the inside of the house black) but were not doing it maliciously as they thought they were making it better. Some insurers have started to add this rather than go the whole way and add accidental damage.
Accidental Damage - allows for far more events and I believe is necessary for comprehensive cover. The list this opens up is endless and removes many grey areas. Personally, I would not have a landlord policy that doesn't include it, and policies without it cannot be compared on an apples for apples basis. Not many policies include this.
Then of course there are the "defined events" such as fire, storm, damage by intruders etc. that all policies will have.
So the bottom line is, if the policy didn't include Accidental Damage, you probably wouldn't be able to claim. You would be expected to get it from the bond if there was enough available to do that, which is often not the case.
2. You always need to check what the policy definition of a lease is. In our case the purpose of the question would have been to check that it is a permanently let property, and not holiday letting / corporate leasing, as that would require a different policy (RentCoverShortTerm).
Our definition of a lease is clear and isn't a problem for you, it reads:
"A written agreement between you and a tenant for occupancy of the
premises which is;
- allowed by and compliant with legislative requirements in the State or Territory the premises are located in and
- for which a bond equivalent to at least four weeks rent has been paid.
It also includes a tenancy at will which immediately follows the lease."
As you will see thi sincludes periodic tenancies, something which people do get caught out on with some policies as they require the tenant to be on a current, written, fixed term lease. We don't, they just needed to be on one originally, even if it was 20 years ago.
I hope that helps.
