Help - Tenant in Need

  1. Download their policy
  2. Find the liability section
  3. Look for an exclusion excluding claims to property in the insured's "custody, control, possession" or similar.
  4. Consider if a rental is likely to be considered "custody, control, possession" or whatever.
  5. Have a guess at response of Legal Dept.

you're saying the landlords policy wouldn't be similarily worded?
Are they not all considered on a case by case basis?

Regardless, that is for the tenant to argue.
 
It still wouldn't save you insurance money would it ? We'd still want to insure our building and keep our landlord insurance for any other events that may occur.
It would save you having to pay the excess and it would save your policy from going up by xx% next year.
 
It would save you having to pay the excess and it would save your policy from going up by xx% next year.

We'd might as well save our breath (er typing)
Some people are bound and determined to pay for damages, that they didn't even do.
 
you're saying the landlords policy wouldn't be similarily worded?
Are they not all considered on a case by case basis?

Regardless, that is for the tenant to argue.

  1. The landlord's policy would have a similar exclusion, though this isn't relevant to the question as to whether the tenant's liability cover extends to damage they negligently cause to a rented property.
  2. What is considered on a case by case basis is whether the claim/event falls within the wording of the policy.
  3. Indeed. But absent an insurance cover indemnifying the tenant, recovering the costs of any material damage caused by the tenant from the tenant...well, good luck.
 
We'd might as well save our breath (er typing)
Some people are bound and determined to pay for damages, that they didn't even do.

No. Let me tell you what I would do as the landlord in the circumstances described in the original post.

If the tenant was involved with a fire in his room, regardless of what caused it, and was hospitalised for a week, I would NOT get the PM to lie to him and tell him I have put in an insurance claim (unless I really had done that). I would involve my insurer immediately.

My insurer would do all that is necessary to get the house in a habitable condition ASAP so as to lessen the inconvenience to the tenant, and minimise any liability I might have to pay for alternative housing for him (insurance funded or not). In this case, I believe this person could make some big trouble for the landlord.

My insurer would certainly be interviewing both me and my tenant regarding the circumstances of the damage. If the tenant had any insurance, my insurance company would certainly look at recouping their costs from his policy if at all possible.

That is my take on how insurance works. I know for a fact that the one time we did have an IP claim, the insurer chased the second person on the lease who didn't even cause the damage, but she will be paying for it for a long time.

I would never rely on the tenant having appropriate cover. I like to know I'm covered. Perhaps things are different in Nova Scotia. It seems you do insist your tenants have a certain cover. From the google I did, it doesn't convince me that the tenant would be covered from the initial wording of what a tenant policy covers with a couple of insurers that I clicked on.

Also, in the case of the initial post, the PM and the landlord appear to have lied through their teeth about making a claim.

I am not happy to pay anything that I don't have to, but I like to think I'm a reasonable person, and I would be very concerned if any tenant of mine spent a week in hospital with burns and lung damage and asking them to be discharged from hospital and make the place habitable again themselves would not even enter my head.

And to be honest, none of us know exactly what damage was caused, what needed to be fixed. Insurance premiums rise each year. If I make a claim, sure, it might rise some more, but I would certainly be checking this out thoroughly before just paying it.
 
insurance reply

Below is the reply from the second insurance provider. If the mods wish to delete the insurance name, please do.
It is obvious, the tenant does have the option to insure themselves.
I would assume, having 10 mil in liability insurance is to cover more than just a carpet.



Dear Kathryn,

Thank you for your recent enquiry.

RACV Care advises our Contents insurance covers you as a tenant for
$10 million liability for loss or damage to other people's property.

With regards to temporary accommodation, if you are a tenant and
cannot live in the home as a result of an incident we will pay for
the temporary accommodation we agree is reasonable.

Please refer to page 13 of the attached Product Disclosure Statement
and Policy Booklet for further information regarding Liability
cover, and page 23 regarding Temporary accommodation.

For general enquiries call 13 RACV (13 7228) 7am-11pm seven days or
visit any RACV Shop.

Regards
 
That is great, but my son who works as a PM says about 10% of tenants carry insurance.

I still prefer to have my own backside covered, and if I need to make a claim, my insurer can do whatever they want about getting money out of the tenant and/or their insurer.

Even if your tenants have insurance, give you a copy of the policy, what is to stop them from cancelling that policy? I know you are not saying you rely solely on the tenants having insurance, and perhaps if your building policy doesn't cover accidental damage by a tenant you need to ensure the tenant has a policy, but we do have accidental and malicious damage in our policies.

We are also talking about different countries here, so really what you do in Novia Scotia has not much bearing on what is "normal" here.
 
Whatever anyone decides to do with information, is up to them.

The ACT for this OP states, the tenant is liable for any and all damage they do.
 
Sorry about the long post, this issue has caught my imagination. Here are my findings after going through the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 No 42. I am not a lawyer so I might have missed something.

Summary: if a tenant damaged the premises they must pay to fix it, the Landlord has no obligation to fix the premises or to find the tenant alternate accommodation. The tenant cannot end the tenancy agreement because of their damage and they must keep paying their agreed rent. (end summary)


If anybody has reason to believe that the landlord is required to fix the damage, or to provide the tenant with alternative accommodation then please quote your sources.

Note that this is for the case where the tenant damaged the premises. It's different if the building becomes uninhabitable through no fault of the tenant: the tenant or landlord can terminate the agreement.

Applying this to the original post: there is no obligation for the landlord to fix the damage done by the tenant. None. Landlords are not required to repair anything that is broken by the tenants in breach of their rental agreement. The tenant cannot terminate the rental agreement even if the house is uninhabitable. The tenant must continue to pay the full rent for the remaining term of the rental agreement and fix the damage they caused. There is no requirement for the landlord to pay for alternative accommodation for the tenant.

The agreement between the tenant and landlord is "for the tenant the right of occupation of the landlord's premises for the purpose of use as a residence". It's only the right to occupy the landlord's premises, not for the landlord to provide the tenant with accommodation come-what-may. The landlord is not responsible for finding alternative accommodation should the house become uninhabitable. If the landlord's premises becomes inhabitable to no fault of the tenant then the rental agreement can be terminated. If the premises becomes uninhabitable due to the tenants actions they they need to fix it and keep paying their rent.



Ok, where does insurance come into this?

Landlords insurance might cover the tenants damage. Might. I don't think it covers accidental damage or wear. Building insurance might cover the damage. In both cases the landlord now has a claim against their name, an excess to pay, and increased premiums.

The Tenant's contents insurance might have covered this if they had it. In this case the tenant makes the claim, pays the excess, and sores the hit.

To answer Wylie, what would a smart landlord do?

Get it fixed asap, get the insurance company to chase the tenant so the landlord doesn't pay excess or score a claim hit. Also consider terminating the tenancy agreement and getting new people in. Should the landlord pay for tenant's temporary accommodation? No. The tenant had an opportunity to get their own insurance for that. It's not the landlord's problem legally or morally. Do the tenants get a rent discount because the house is broken? No. Do the tenants pay for the repairs in full? Yes.

--------

Quoted Bits of the Act:

51 Use of premises by tenant
(1) A tenant must not do any of the following: (d) intentionally or negligently cause or permit any damage to the residential premises,

52 Landlord’s general obligations for residential premises
(1) A landlord must provide the residential premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and fit for habitation by the tenant.
(2) A landlord must not interfere with the supply of gas, electricity, water, telecommunications services or other services to the residential premises unless the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out.
(3) A landlord must comply with the landlord’s statutory obligations relating to the health or safety of the residential premises.

63 Landlord’s general obligation
(1) A landlord must provide and maintain the residential premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age of, rent payable for and prospective life of the premises.
(2) A landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the residential premises in a reasonable state of repair applies even though the tenant had notice of the state of disrepair before entering into occupation of the residential premises.
(3) A landlord is not in breach of the obligation to provide and maintain the residential premises in a reasonable state of repair if the state of disrepair is caused by the tenant’s breach of this Part.


90 Serious damage or injury by tenant or other occupant
(1) The Tribunal may, on application by a landlord, make a termination order if it is satisfied that the tenant, or any person who although not a tenant is occupying or jointly occupying the residential premises, has intentionally or recklessly caused or permitted:
(a) serious damage to the residential premises or any neighbouring property (including any property available for use by the tenant in common with others),


109 Agreement frustrated—destruction of, or uninhabitable, premises
(1) This section applies if residential premises under a residential tenancy agreement are, otherwise than as a result of a breach of an agreement, destroyed or become wholly or partly uninhabitable or cease to be lawfully usable as a residence or are appropriated or acquired by any authority by compulsory process.
(2) The landlord or the tenant may give the other party a termination notice.
(3) The termination notice may end the residential tenancy agreement on the date that the notice is given.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top