for those of you who have it as a requirement of your lease, was there a preset amount stipulated by your landlord?
my property manager wants me to insure my unit for $100K. seems awfully sketchy to me, especially as tho it's thru a company they have some sort of contact with. i'm resistant, but there's a monthly fee each month i don't.
5. "okay, Rob. explain this to me like a 3 year old..." In response to Reply # 2
i contact the insurance co inform them of the amount i want to be insured for, and they give mea quote?
it became a requirement here last year but i *totally* believe these folks are scam artists we're expected to pay for fucking light bulbs smoke/c.o detectors refrigerator
~~~~ When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries. ~~~~ You cannot hate people for their own good.
15. "$100k for what? Liability, or property insurance? A tenants' policy " In response to Reply # 0
(frequently referred to as an HO4) usually includes both. It's important to understand the difference an it's probably worth reading the insurance section of the lease in order to make sure you understand what it's requiring you to buy.
If you want to cut-and-paste the insurance section language in here I'm happy to give you my thoughts on it.
As for the two types of coverage & what appropriate limits might be:
1. Liability insurance = claims from a 3d party against you for bodily injury or property damage.*
$100,000 for liability insurance is very reasonable for a landlord to require.
2. Property insurance = your claims against your insurer for damage to your personal property due to a covered loss, such as a fire. This is usually written on a 'replacement cost' basis - the cost to replace what you have - but can be written on ACV (Actual Cash Value/depreciated) basis as well. Replacement cost is infinitely better.
If the landlord is requiring you to carry $100,000 in property insurance, that's kinda wacky; how much property insurance you carry should reflect how much stuff you have & how much it would cost to replace it, not a limit arbitrarily selected by a third party with no real** interest in how much stuff you actually have.
That said, renters' insurance is normally quite inexpensive so if they're requiring $100k for personal liability AND $100k coverage for your personal property, it shouldn't break the bank.
I'll agree that it's fishy that a landlord would MAKE you buy your insurance from a particular agent and would advise you to look into it. It's frequently most cost-effective to add renters' coverage t your auto policy.
*In general, you should carry enough liability insurance (both personal (attached to your homeowners'/renters') and auto) to protect your assets. It may be worth evaluating the limts on your Auto policy at the same time you're doing this. Aditionally an Umbrella policy extending liability over both your personal liability and your auto liability is never a bad idea. Last thing you want is to be at-fault in a serious claim and have your bottom-barrel limits exhaust quickly and be in jeopardy of having your personal assets threatened.) (Though that last scenario is rare.)
**In general, it's very much in landlords' best interest (and anyone with a rental property should note this as well) to make certain their tenants have renters' insurance, including both liability and property coverages, because better insured tenants make it less likely that a claim will be brought against the landlord.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
