• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Renter's car damaged by tree falling

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

coachclive

Junior Member
State: Washington.

I am renting a house (furnished) and last night a tree on the property fell and severely damaged my car. Is this something that I can get the landlord to pay for (is it their liability, to be covered by thier homeowners insurance), or should I use my car insurance?

Clive
 


Litigation!

Senior Member
coachclive said:
State: Washington.

I am renting a house (furnished) and last night a tree on the property fell and severely damaged my car. Is this something that I can get the landlord to pay for (is it their liability, to be covered by thier homeowners insurance), or should I use my car insurance?

Clive

My response:

Your rental house is "furnished"? I'm sure glad you mentioned that fact. That makes all the difference when trying to give you legal advice.

Now, since you're renting a furnished house, you have no "cause of action." Unless you can prove negligence, use your own insurance.

IAAL
 

zippysgoddess

Senior Member
There is a chance your claim could be denied, even with your own insurance. This is considered an act of God and not usually covered unless you have premium insurance and pay extra for such things to be covered.
 

moburkes

Senior Member
Why wouldn't this be covered under the landlord's (homeowner's) homeowner's insurance? I would consider the renter's comprehensive insurance (if he has any) secondary. Right?
 

ENASNI

Senior Member
moburkes said:
Why wouldn't this be covered under the landlord's (homeowner's) homeowner's insurance? I would consider the renter's comprehensive insurance (if he has any) secondary. Right?

Nope... only if the home was "unfurnished"...
 

moburkes

Senior Member
ENASNI said:
Nope... only if the home was "unfurnished"...
Are you being funny, or are you serious? I've never had that claim filed (no experience), but that makes sense to me. Let's say he was a visitor to the property, wouldn't it have been covered? I'm not understanding the reasoning.
 

HomeGuru

Senior Member
ENASNI said:
Nope... only if the home was "unfurnished"...

**A: but it would really depend on the exact type of unfurnished condition ie. totally unfurnished or partly furnished.
 

ENASNI

Senior Member
HomeGuru said:
**A: but it would really depend on the exact type of unfurnished condition ie. totally unfurnished or partly furnished.

You are correct again HG, it also depends on if the car was furnished or unfurnished or partly unfurnished.


I hate not getting all the details. :(
 

HomeGuru

Senior Member
ENASNI said:
You are correct again HG, it also depends on if the car was furnished or unfurnished or partly unfurnished.


I hate not getting all the details. :(

**A: and this also applies if the car was an RV or a mobile home or there may be exclusions in the insurance policy.
 

mlk1978

Member
moburkes said:
Why wouldn't this be covered under the landlord's (homeowner's) homeowner's insurance? I would consider the renter's comprehensive insurance (if he has any) secondary. Right?
Because the landlord was not negligent. He is not liable for it at all. It was an act of god/falling object... it falls under comprehensive or "other than collision".
 

MandyD

Member
mlk1978 said:
Because the landlord was not negligent. He is not liable for it at all. It was an act of god/falling object... it falls under comprehensive or "other than collision".
Ah, but we don't know that the LL wasn't negligent. Our poster didn't say why the tree fell, only that it did. If that tree was dead or diseased AND it can be proved the LL was aware of it's condition and did nothing, then he very well may be negligent.
 

mlk1978

Member
MandyD said:
Ah, but we don't know that the LL wasn't negligent. Our poster didn't say why the tree fell, only that it did. If that tree was dead or diseased AND it can be proved the LL was aware of it's condition and did nothing, then he very well may be negligent.

This is very true! I stand corrected.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top