That's what I thought! I think people quoting Canadian law on an Australian property forum is very misleading and pointless.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's what I thought! I think people quoting Canadian law on an Australian property forum is very misleading and pointless.
That's what I thought! I think people quoting Canadian law on an Australian property forum is very misleading and pointless.
That's what I thought! I think people quoting Canadian law on an Australian property forum is very misleading and pointless.
require the tenant to insure their liability, just as ALL rental businesses do, everyone on Somersoft writes how they are business persons, yet invariably allow another person to draft the contract
This is where the differing opinions are. You are saying a tenant can insure the building, whereas others here in Australia are saying that you can't, only the owner can. Either way, I don't care, it's not an issue I have to deal with so I'm not going to investigate the definitive answer.
Well... they'd still have to claim on their building insurance, but if the building insurer were successful in pursuing the tenant's public liability, then the claim wouldn't be registered "against" the landlord's policy. I think this is a non-issue because I don't believe that previous claims affect the amount of your policy. They ask about previous claims, I understand, because fraud is so hard to prove; their only protection against fraud is to refuse to insure people who are "particularly accident-prone" eg all their last 3 homes have gone up in flames. But I believe they only ask these questions to weed out potentially risky clients; but if they accept you, the price of the policy is based only upon what you're insuring, not on their perceived risk of you as an individual (unlike car insurance with ratings etc).Thanks Perp, once again a very informative post. What I don't understand is, how would the liability component of tenant insurance, if the tenant had it, help the landlord in the opening post?
Correct.Biggles said:I was talking about how can a tenant cover themselves directly for the building should they destroy it, which my understanding is they can't.
Well, it's to the benefit of the landlords because many people wouldn't have enough assets/income to cover the potential cost of a building claim anyway. So kathryn_d insists that her tenants have sufficient public liability to make it worthwhile pursuing the tenant. If your tenant's somebody on a low income with only a 2000 Daewoo Matiz worth $3K on a good day (that's my own car I'm paying out ), then in addition to having to establish a new precedent of making the tenant responsible for building damage, you're facing the uphill battle of convincing a judge that they're capable of repaying. You'd probably get $5 a week for however long it takes to repay the damage.Biggles said:However, they should for their own sake have the liability insurance to cover themselves should someone come after them for the cost but I would have thought that's to their benefit not the landlords.
Well, it's to the benefit of the landlords because many people wouldn't have enough assets/income to cover the potential cost of a building claim anyway.
I doubt this is correct, actually... but if you know of an instance where renters' insurance has covered damage to the landlord's property, please do share!kathryn_d said:If our tenant did this, we would tell them to contact their insurance company, pay their deductible, and repair the property.
It wouldn't be thru our insurance at all.
My reading is that the primary reason that landlords in the USA/Canada require tenants to have renters' insurance is because it indemnifies the landlord from claims such as slips and falls caused by the tenant's actions (eg leaving a hose lying across the footpath), and dog bite claims due to the tenant's dog. If the tenant doesn't have insurance, the injured person may have cause of action against the landlord for these types of claim.We do include this as a requirment for our leases.Most BIG rental properties in Canada do. A handful of us smaller ones are starting. Do you think the big ones are doing it because they care about their tenant? Hardly.
TF,
We all get upset when a tenant damages our property. This is not an accident.No one walks away from oil on the stove.
Somersoft is a great place to vent.
Maybe if you don't get upset..this isn't really a business?
Kathryn D - When you say its not an accident and noone walks away from oil on a stove have to disagree here YES people do more than you would think, they even go pick kids up from school believe it or not.
.
Brian
After further research, I don't believe a tenant could claim for damage to the landlord's property under their renters' insurance, because there is an insurance principle that you can't make a claim against a "general" insurance policy, for anything which should have been covered by a more specific policy. Otherwise, everybody would just rely on public liability insurance instead of taking out third party motor vehicle insurance (and other policies which protect you against claims for damage to the property of others).
So you can't rely on your public liability insurance to cover you for a car accident where you damage somebody else's car, because that's what car insurance is for. Similarly, a renter's insurance will not pay for damage to a building which should have been covered by the landlord's building insurance.
I doubt this is correct, actually... but if you know of an instance where renters' insurance has covered damage to the landlord's property, please do share!
Regarding the requirement of many US/Canadian landlords to have their tenants carry renters' insurance:
My reading is that the primary reason that landlords in the USA/Canada require tenants to have renters' insurance is because it indemnifies the landlord from claims such as slips and falls caused by the tenant's actions (eg leaving a hose lying across the footpath), and dog bite claims due to the tenant's dog. If the tenant doesn't have insurance, the injured person may have cause of action against the landlord for these types of claim.
Agreed people do this, but it is not an accident, it would be considered negligence.
Most "accidents" are preventable, and therefore not really accidents.
How you phrase or word your statements, makes all the difference.
It's like the difference of "shall" and "should" in a contract.
After further research, I don't believe a tenant could claim for damage to the landlord's property under their renters' insurance, because there is an insurance principle that you can't make a claim against a "general" insurance policy, for anything which should have been covered by a more specific policy. Otherwise, everybody would just rely on public liability insurance instead of taking out third party motor vehicle insurance (and other policies which protect you against claims for damage to the property of others).
I doubt this is correct, actually... but if you know of an instance where renters' insurance has covered damage to the landlord's property, please do share!
.
The link you provided refers to the landlord's fixtures and fittings, which would normally be covered by the landlord's contents insurance. I was specifically talking about the landlord's building insurance policy.Well, I just got off the phone with Youi, and as long as tenant insurance cover is required in the lease, it would be covered.
http://www.youi.com.au/faq/What_is_tenants_liability_cover
This is one of the reasons we write our own contract leases.
See..a bit of research does help.