Landlord as "additional insured"

[moz374]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Colorado


I'm hoping to install satellite TV service in my apartment. Under the terms of my lease the property owners require that I "maintain and provide landlord with evidence of liability insurance...naming landlord as an additional insured to protect landlord against losses relating to resident's satellite dish or antenna."

I contacted my renter's insurance company and was informed that they won't name landlords as "additional insured" because they are insuring me and my possesions against loss/liability, not my landlord.

I'm confused. Do I have options other than finding a different insurance company that would agree to my landlord as an "additional insured??"

[ecmst12]

He wouldn't be an additional insured, but could be an additional interest, as in, if you cause damage to his property, he's protected. He doesn't NEED to be on the policy for him to be able to make a claim on it, but it doesn't hurt. And more to the point, he wants to be notified if the policy lapses. But he wouldn't be insured because the policy would not be protecting HIS liability, or his property from damage except if the damage was caused by your negligence.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by moz374

I contacted my renter's insurance company and was informed that they won't name landlords as "additional insured" because they are insuring me and my possesions against loss/liability, not my landlord.

"

the insurance involved has nothing to do with your possessions. It is strictly a liability issue.





actually, from reading this article:

[url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/213711/insurance_101_additional_insured_loss.html?cat=27]Insurance 101: Additional Insured & Loss Payee - Associated Content[/url]

it would appear that an additional insured may be appropriate. If a person were injured by the dish (you know, the wind whips up, the dish turns into a UFO and whacks somebody), it would seem appropriate that the LL be named additional insured rather than just loss payee.

there is additional liability to the LL by having the dish attached to his property so I would think he would have the right to demand being named as additional insured. It shouldn't cost the LL money for the tenant to have the dish on the property.

[ecmst12]

The landlord's OWN insurance covers his liability for actions of his tenants. Renter's insurance is not designed to protect a landlord in that fashion.

[justalayman]

this actually has nothing to do with renters insurance. It is a purely liability issue and the landlord is correct in demanding additional coverage due to the tenants actions causing the landlord greater liability.

The LL's insurance would obviously be there but when a person causes the possibility of greater liability, there is nothing wrong in demanding they shoulder the cost of the increased liability. There is no reason the LL's insurance should be called upon to cover a liability caused as a direct and intentional action by a tenant and no reason the LL should be required to make a claim on his insurance when the tenant is the direct cause of the liability.

as well, the landlord should be listed as a loss payee to prevent a situation where the tenant may not make restitution to the LL for damages their actions caused.

[moburkes]

LL will not be listed as additional insured. The renters' policy was never meant to cover the LL. The LL needs to increase his own LL insurance policy. Insurance company will accept additional interest, but not additional insured as was already stated. There is no loss payee on a renters' policy.

ecmst12 was correct. Plus, the provision is not requiring renter to get ADDITIONAL insurance, just required (stupidly because no insurance company will allow it) to be added to the policy as an insured. Also, LL has no "insurable" interest in the satellite.

[Ozark_Sophist]

Seems like landlord's position is designed to prevent tenants from getting satellite tv to skirt federal rules (i.e., write a lease provision that is impossible to meet). Check out 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000. I don't think it is enforceable, but more research is necessary.

[url]http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html[/url]

Q: What types of restrictions are prohibited?

A: The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person's ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners' association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. A restriction impairs if it: (1) unreasonably delays or prevents use of; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of; or (3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule. The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by moburkes

Also, LL has no "insurable" interest in the satellite.

You have got to be kidding me. Who said anything about an insurable interest in the satellite? I said, the LL is exposed to additional liability due to the satellite dish and there is no reason he should be required to increase his insurance when the issue is not of his making and in fact, one that he cannot refuse, in general. I said nothing about the LL making a claim for a damaged dish.


It is the same thing (as to the additional insured) when a LL requires a tenant to provide liability insurance when they obtain a pit bull. The LL's liability is greater and the LL can require the tenant to purchase the additional insurance to cover that liability.

here is a page from an insurance company stating the additional insured is possible and practical:

[url]http://www.cambridge-pc.com/pdf/Landlords.pdf[/url]

here is a court case where the courts found the LL to be an additional insured even when there was no specific designation:

[url=http://cibgny.com/wordpress/?p=1284]LEASE REQUIRING TENANT TO PROCURE INSURANCE FOR LANDLORD IS “INSURED CONTRACT” TRIGGERING COVERAGE UNDER TENANT’S LIABILITY POLICY The Council of Insurance Brokers of Greater New York[/url]

and here is a lease by a property management company that requires the tenant to obtain insurance with the LL as additional insured:

[url]http://www.rowleyproperties.com/commercial/pdf/comm_app.pdf[/url]

and here is something from the Washington state insurance commissioner that doesn't have a problem with the LL requiring a tenant to name the LL as additional insured:

[url]http://www.insurance.wa.gov/publications/home/renters_insurance.pdf[/url]


Now, to the loss payee:

of course the LL will want to be named as loss payee. It is his property that may be damaged if the wind rips the dish loose and beats it against his building. It is the same as a lien holder requiring insurance to name them as loss payee for coverage on the collateral for the loan the allowed the lien.


not only is is proper but it would be prudent for the LL to require such endorsements.


come on here guys. the landlord is simply demanding the dish not cost him any money. How would that be wrong.


and to Ozark_sophist:

the closest thing to being illegal would be the section:

(2) unreasonably increases the cost of;

Nothing else is remotely involved.

As to the additional costs being unreasonable; obviously that would be a courts decision but I do not believe requiring the tenant to provide proof of financial responsibility would be considered to be unreasonable.

[ecmst12]

It's NOT remotely the same as a leinholder on car insurance. If tenant damages LL's property, then LL is a CLAIMANT, and he can be paid as a claimant. He does not have any need to be a LOSS PAYEE. That implies he would be paid if TENANT'S property was damaged, which of course is insane.

[Banned_Princess]

Originally Posted by ecmst12

It's NOT remotely the same as a leinholder on car insurance. If tenant damages LL's property, then LL is a CLAIMANT, and he can be paid as a claimant. He does not have any need to be a LOSS PAYEE. That implies he would be paid if TENANT'S property was damaged, which of course is insane.

Which is also the case of why this concept is hard to understand.

[Zigner]

Folks - Ozark's post seems to have been lost in the mix. The LL's request may, and probably DOES, run contrary to FEDERAL law.

[moburkes]

Justa - generally, additional insureds aren't protected for section II coverages (medical payments and liability); they are protected for Section I coverages (dwelling, other structures, personal property/contents, and loss of use). So, adding them as an additional insured doesn't serve the purpose you're describing.

Also, when a LL requires a tenant to have ADDITIONAL coverage, that still doesn't cover the LL any more. Likely, it is illegal to for them require a certain amount of coverage, since they aren't a mortgagee (whose only requirement is for the dwelling, not liability). A LL could never be listed as a mortgagee, either.

Also, the lease you're referring to is a commercial lease. I can honestly say that I haven't written a commercial policy in about 5 years, and, even then I was able to explain to LL's that they couldn't be additional insureds on the policy (per the insurance company). I will even disagree with that insurance company about the "layer" of liability protection it affords.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Folks - Ozark's post seems to have been lost in the mix. The LL's request may, and probably DOES, run contrary to FEDERAL law.

I already addressed that. It is not in contrast to the law.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by ecmst12

It's NOT remotely the same as a leinholder on car insurance. If tenant damages LL's property, then LL is a CLAIMANT, and he can be paid as a claimant. He does not have any need to be a LOSS PAYEE. That implies he would be paid if TENANT'S property was damaged, which of course is insane.

maybe this is why you are arguing so much. This has nothing to do with the tenants property being damaged. It is to do with the landlords property being damaged. I am not speaking about damage to the dish. I am speaking to damage to the LL's property that a wind whipped dish may cause.

[justalayman]

=moburkes;2348949]Justa - generally, additional insureds aren't protected for section II coverages (medical payments and liability); they are protected for Section I coverages (dwelling, other structures, personal property/contents, and loss of use). So, adding them as an additional insured doesn't serve the purpose you're describing.

so, you are disagreeing with the Washington state insurance commissioner as well as Progressive insurance and whatever that other insurance company I quoted from was?

Ok.

Also, when a LL requires a tenant to have ADDITIONAL coverage, that still doesn't cover the LL any more.

it covers the LL up to the limits of whatever the tenants policy is and the LL's policy would add to that.

Likely, it is illegal to for them require a certain amount of coverage, since they aren't a mortgagee (whose only requirement is for the dwelling, not liability).

I didn't see a specific coverage amount listed in anything I read only that a LL can, and should, be included as an additionally insured.

Also, the lease you're referring to is a commercial lease. I can honestly say that I haven't written a commercial policy in about 5 years, and, even then I was able to explain to LL's that they couldn't be additional insureds on the policy (per the insurance company). I will even disagree with that insurance company about the "layer" of liability protection it affords.\

So, what about the court decision I referred to where the NY courts determined the LL was in fact an additionally insured, even if they were not specifically named?