Tenant Sues Landlord

A horror story. A colleague moved to Brisbane at the beginning of the year. He rented out his PPOR in Sydney.
A month later the male tenant slipped and splintered an ankle bone while walking down the driveway. No major or lasting damage. However, three months later the tenant visited a no win-no fee lawyer. Six months later my colleague received legal papers informing him that the tenant was sueing him for $750,000! There's a medical report to say the tenant's ankle was injured, but had since repaired itself. But there's also a letter from a tame psych who says the tenant suffered deep emotional and psychological as a result of the accident. My friend, who is not a professional investor and has a young family, tells me this placed everything he owned in jeopardy.
After a period of negotiation the claim has been reduced to $30,000 plus legal costs which he'll manage if he sells the property. Nearly, 12 months since the "accident" my friend is still waiting to go to court. The stress has been unbearable.
The tenant remains in the house dutifully and carefully fulfilling all the requirements of the lease. He's stopped working. His wife's income pays the rent. My friend has been advised by his lawyers to leave the the tenant there if the lease expires before the court case, which looks likely, otherwise he might be accused of conducting a vendetta.
What really angers my friend is that he and his wife welcomed the new tenants to their home with a bottle of wine and flowers.
And what of his insurance you ask? Well, the insurance company is trying to wriggle out refusing to say whether he's covered for it. They keep telling him they are "still investigating".
The question? How do we stop bludgers like this coming after us. Is setting up a trust and putting our properties into it the answer? And what a cost! One thing is certain. There will be many more cases like this. Just count the ads being run by lawyers in the rental columns of your local newspaper.
 
Setting up a trust would not have stopped your colleague from losing his property. My understanding is, that if the property had been in a trust, the damage would have been limited to property owned the trust. So your colleague's own house (orother properties outside the trust) would not have been at risk as well. And other properties in other trusts would also have been safe.

(The tenant could even claim the wine contributed!)

The more people see that they can get a "free" lottery prize, the more difficult it will be for landlords.
 
Hi PR

Geez what a load of stuff to cope with. Bugger the tennant, its the inurer id be getting crook with.

Maybe Im naive but shouldnt the house insurer be contesting the claim ?

My immediate suggestion is to make as much media noise as possible. Times like this where ACA and Today Tonite do have a place.

Ta

Rolf
 
Landlord strikes back

Hi everyone,
Couldn't we add an "all care no responsibility" type clause to the lease?
Apart from placing each property in a separate trust - are there any other options we can take to protect our IPs from litigious tenants?
Cheers,
Crystal
 
Hi,

Landlords insurance should cover you for Legal Liabililty as a property owner.

The policy that I am reading states up to 10,000,000 dollars protection.

The policy then gives an example of:

A RECENT HIGH COURT DECISION HELD A LANDLORD LIABLE FOR INJURY TO A TENANTS CHILD, CAUSED BY AN ELECTRICAL FAULT."

Marina.
 
Actually, Geoff, he would not have lost the property if it was in trust, depending on how he was set up. If the property was held in trust, with a company as trustee, then he would be safe.
He could have, once the jackass tried to sue, fired the company as trustee and put another company in as trustee. Since you can only claim assets held by the trustee, he would have been okay, because by now the company no longer holds any assets and the guy would have gotten nothing.
Just another reason to put your assets in a trust (that is structured correctly) because you don't know when some prick and his greedy lawyer is going to come after you.

Mark
'no hat, some cattle'
 
Another story, this time from the States.
A fella had a skateboard, and because he wasn't doing so well at school, he parents threw it in the garbage to be taken to the tip. One of the garbagemen (who had never ridden a skateboard in his life) decided to muck around and had a roll. He promptly fell, broke his ankle and sued the kids parents. He won.
There are literally thousands and thousands of stories like this. Those people who are aware of the advantage of trusts and what they can do for you, protection wise and still choose to do nothing, you are putting your assets in serious danger.
Every time I hear people making excuses about not putting their assets in trusts, it is because of the costs involved. Okay, there are costs, it's called insurance.
By putting your assets in a correctly structured trust, you are insuring your assets are safe. There is not only the dollar cost of how much money you will lose if you do get successfully sued, think about how much time you have spent working a shitty job to save up the money to buy investments in the first place. All that time away from your families and friends (who are also probably working). What about those costs? Isn't the freedom to not have to work why you invested in the first place?

Mark
'no hat, some cattle'
 
Hi all

I agree with Rolf. It would appear to me that the insurance company is the one to contest the claim.

I agree that the tenant is an A******e but we have to live with them.

My concern is that I put in place for myself or clients or recommend to others, Landlord protection Insurance, dozens of times per year and would be interested to learn just which insuranc company is not to be used or which one does face up to its responsibilities.

Can we be informed please?

In the meantime, all the best to the Landlord

Regards

Ross
 
What a sad tale- and the stress that poor landlord is now undergoing- what an absolute p**** of a tenant!!!

It's stories like these that make my blood boil, as there are now so many litigations out there similar to this where ordinary people are making mockeries out of the whole insurance system. The thing that they all forget is that this money doesn't come out of thin air. It comes from the insurance companies, who then have to make up their losses by generating more money from who? It's clients, you and I, who faithfully pay our home contents, building, landlords insurance every year, watching in disbelief as the premiums climb higher and higher.

Where does it end?
If I am renting and I trip over a rock in the garden, do I sue?
If I visit an open house and fall down the stairs, do I sue the homeowner?
If I'm blinded by the sun's reflection on the water on the pool and fall over and break my wrist, do I sue?
If I have too hot a sausage sandwich at a garage sale and burn my mouth (causing me stress and emotional trauma) can I sue?
If someone trips over my garbage bin late at night and needs stitches in their face, can they sue me?

As far as litigation goes, we are only second behind the USA. Now that's scary!!
My mother, who works in this field, told me a recent story (one of many) of a girl who wanted to sue the pub she got drunk in because she tripped outside the pub on an uneven part of the ground and twisted her ankle. She claims she was off work for weeks and was "emotionally traumatized" by the whole incident, as it was her hen's night out and it was completely ruined! The fact that she was totally blind apparently had nothing to do with it :) She claims the hotel should have known when she'd had enough and should have stopped selling her alcohol (yes, and now we expect barstaff to be experts on human behaviour! Some people I know appear drunk when they're acting normally!!)
I say, go to ACA or TTonight and tell them you've got a terrific bludger story- the insurance companies will love you as well!
Keep us posted with any further details- and best of luck to the landlord ...................
 
This is an issue that you can't really do justice to in a forum format like this...but in brief there have been 2 important cases on this decided by the high court. In a nutshell the requirement is one of reasonable care only.

Sure, sure, you say...but what does THAT mean????

Basically, a landlord is required to do only what is reasonable in the circumstances to make the premises safe. The landlord is not required to guarantee the safety of the premises. Furthermore, the landlord will not have breached his or her
duty of care merely because the premises can be made safer...Safety is, after all, a relative thing.

The chief Justice, Murry Gleeson had this to say in Jones v Bartlett:

There is no such thing as absolute safety. All residential premises contain hazards
to their occupants and to visitors. Most dwelling houses could be made safer, if
safety were the only consideration. The fact that a house could be made safer does
not mean it is dangerous or defective. Safety standards imposed by legislation or
regulation recognise a need to balance safety with other factors, including cost,
convenience, aesthetics and practicality.

Jones v Bartlett was about walking through a glass door.
The case referred to in one of the earlier posts was a tragic electrocution of a little girl - Northern Sandblasting v Harris.

Like all investing, rental property investment involves risk. That risk takes various forms. There is interest rate risk, vacancy risk, ffire risk and tenant risk - just to name a few!!!!

The key issue is how you minimise, manage and mitigate these risks. In cases like this "INSURANCE" springs to mind, but there are other ways of protecting your assets from litigation risk.

Maybe a talk about these issues is in order? Altho it gets a bit depressing when you start talking about people suing people...

Get your own specific professional advice of course! ;)

Cheers
N.
 
Hi,

It seems it comes down to the point that we have to be mindful of other peoples stupidity.

Another point to note was that a judge once said that they award such claims because it takes the burden of supporting these people out of the public (government) realm. Eg image the medical and unemployement costs associated with supporting someone while they are off work.

Hmmm, maybe there's a big market for developing investment properties out of Nerf (that squishy toy foam).

Picture a tenant repeated running into a wall and bouncing off trying to injure themselves :p

But tenants being childlike sometimes, will probably manage to get their nerf house lodged in their throats.....

Just another thought, that story about the skateboard, why isn't the skateboard manufacture to blame?, or the council who made the path/road? Can the same arguement be applied?, the skateboard is an object. Untouched it caused no damage, only when used improperly or without proper skill does it cause harm.

Imagine a rental clause : "The tenant acknowledges that they have the appropriate skill level with which to accomodate these premises, any injury as a result of insufficient living skill is the fault of the tenant. The tenant acknowledges that the Landlord is providing accomodation only and not mothering skills."

Remember the amount of damage we did to ourselves as Kids. Did these people sue their parents for buying a bike.

MichaelG
 
In regards to the new laws governing the installation of electrical safety switches - if one is not installed in a rental property and someone electrocutes themselves - would they (or their family) be able to sue the landlord because a safety switch wasn't installed?

I am not sure about the new laws in this area and of course real estate agents and conveyancers also don't know about them apart from a homeowner having to declare whether or not the house has a safety switch installed.

Nat:cool:
 
G'day PaulR.,

This is definitely a insurance claim. Your tenant sees you and explains what happened. You then supply him with your insurance companies claim form.
From then on it's between him and the insurance company. You
are involved to a degree.
His insurance company can't renege on their obligations, he has a legal binding contract with them and they have a legal binding contract with him.
The landlord is covered, no need to stress. End of story.
Liability is the usual $10,000,000.

Bruce G.
 
Hi,
Some really helpful posts here. Thanks. I have passed some of the info onto my colleague particularly NigelW's insights which brought a sigh of relief and were passed on to his lawyer and insurance company. You'd think they would be aware of the cases anyway. But who knows. My friend's greatest stress is not knowing what position his insurance company is going to take. It hasn't denied its obligation to him, but neither will it confirm its support twelve months on. For obvious reasons, I'd rather not identify it in a public forum.

In terms of my own rental properties, My accountant's advice was to review all my policies, satisfy myself that I am well protected by a company with a good track record...if unsure find a broker to get me what I want.
 
PaulR,

As the last post in this thread was in late 2002, I was wondering if you could fill us in on how your friend's situation was resolved. (Referring to the situation described in the first post in this thread.)

The initial damages claim - $750,000 - is horrifying, if there was even a slight chance the insurance company wouldn't cover it.

You mentioned the claim against him was reduced to $30,000 plus costs, but hadn't yet been before the courts. How did this turn out?

Did the insurance company pay in the end? Was your friend left out of pocket by the experience?
 
In a recent post I put forward this exact issue. I said then and I'll say it again, looking after your investment propery yourself is dangerous unless you are qualified, understand the legal ramifications, understand the necessary process and have the time to do it....properly.

I warned in that post of solicitors who are now advertising in various media outlets for tenants to take legal actions against landlords. I also suggested anyone who doubts this should contact Jo at Terri Scheer insurance, can she tell you a story or two.

Don't stick your head in the sand - this is happening everyday. Real Estate agencies face this issue too, and is one reason why a good Property Manager is worth every cent.

Kev

www.nundahrealestate.com.au
 
PPOR protection

Given that trusts are good for IP's what about protecting your own home from idiots having accidents there. (Besides insurance).
By that i mean burgulars having an accident and suing or the person down the road falling over on your driveway.
Can you have your PPOR in a trust?
Thanks
Starting out
 
Hi Paul,

I still don't understand how the landlord here could so easily lost this battle?. If it is true that the tenant has rights then, it is also true that the landlord has also rights too. Thus, what did happen here?. Why the landlord couldn't put his case through?

Regards,
James.
 
Back
Top