That really is quite a simple point, it would have to be the tenants responsibility and you shouldn't be looking to make a claim for it. Different matter I guess if the tenant simply won't pay.
and that is what the bond is for...
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 really is quite a simple point, it would have to be the tenants responsibility and you shouldn't be looking to make a claim for it. Different matter I guess if the tenant simply won't pay.
and that is what the bond is for...
What if the accidental damage far outweighs the bond?
What does your RTA say?
Ours says: "the tenant is responsible for any and all damage caused by wilful or negligent action by the tenant, resident or any person whom the tenant permits on the premises."
In the case of a TV, they should have had help carrying it, it was negligence.
So the answer would be any excess would be sought thru the courts, if the tenant didn't voluntarily pay.
Yes, but you would still be subject to any excess, and it's still a claim against your name. It's really the same as any other landlord claim in that respect, the tenant is responsible for the loss, so in a perfect world they would simply pay the loss. In reality, they often don't, that's why you take insurance, and the Insurer then has the right to attempt to recover the loss from the tenant.That is what I mean. If the tenant refuses to pay, you have to do what you have to. Insurance would be cheaper and easier than pursuing a tenant through the courts.
Yes, but you would still be subject to any excess, and it's still a claim against your name. It's really the same as any other landlord claim in that respect, the tenant is responsible for the loss, so in a perfect world they would simply pay the loss. In reality, they often don't, that's why you take insurance, and the Insurer then has the right to attempt to recover the loss from the tenant.
Yes, but you would still be subject to any excess, and it's still a claim against your name. It's really the same as any other landlord claim in that respect, the tenant is responsible for the loss, so in a perfect world they would simply pay the loss. In reality, they often don't, that's why you take insurance, and the Insurer then has the right to attempt to recover the loss from the tenant.
Thanks everyone for your input.
I rang EBM today and they have quoted me a flat fee of $300+. They didn't ask alot of questions, unlike QBE (How much do you want to insure the contents for? what kind of locks do you have? what floor are you on? do you have grilles?).
I am awaiting their quote via email. I have this feeling, like Terri Scheer, their cover may be a little skimpy, since the premium is low and they didn't ask questions.
Having been in this industry for more than 20 years I can assure you the policy is anything but "skimpy", but instead includes many risks that are simply not covered by major Insurer's.
............but I'm happy to charge you more if that makes you feel more comfortable.
I guess that is where we will differ.
I don't use insurance, when I don't need to. I'm not ruining my claim record.
But hey, if using your insurance makes you happy...go for it.
A further risk is possible rejection of the claim by the insurer and the effect that could have on later claims.