Landlord named as additional insured on renter's insurance policy

[TheFly]

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

I have lived in a large apartment complex for several years. My landlord has added an addendum to my lease stipulating the following:
1) I am required to name them as an additional insured on my renter's insurance policy.
2) If I do not provide evidence of the policy referenced in #1, the landlord has the right to purchase renter's insurance covering their liability (but not covering my liability or personal property). If such a policy is purchased, I will be billed for the cost.
3) I must waive any claim against the landlord for losses that would be covered by the insurance referenced above. Additionally, I must require my insurance company to endorse all applicable policies waiving rights to subrogation or otherwise against the landlord.

It seems like my landlord is trying to get a free ride on my policy. I'm also concerned that in the event there is a dispute, having the landlord named as additional insured could prevent the insurance company from acting in my best interest. Are these terms reasonable? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Zigner]

They are reasonable and common.

 

[HatRack]

A Landlords insurance is on the dwelling it's self.
LL's insurance DOES NOT cover a tenants personal possessions.

If a fire burned the building that you have rented a apartment in, to the ground.

My LL insurance would cover lots of things. Including rebuilding.

Your renters insurance would cover your personal property. Clothes, furniture, computer/s.

Suppose this fire was caused by a Tenant falling asleep while smoking. The Fire Investigator links the cause of the fire with this tenant.

My LL insurance would start the process of rebuilding, housing the tenants. Etc.
Then my insurance company would sue you the tenant that fell asleep with the cig and started the fire, for the total costs of the fire.

They will bill your insurance company. IF you didn't have renters Insurance. You would be in debt for most of the rest of your life. This property is worth about 1.2 million.

The reason the LL needs to be on the policy is because of the rental relationship between LL and TT. TT has possession of the dwelling. It is your home. It contains your things. LL owns the entire property. As we see in the example above LL & TT are both responsible for the building.

You have a friend over to have a few beers play some cards. Your son left a plastic truck with wheels on it in the dining room floor. Your friend gets up to use the bathroom. Slips and falls because of the toy truck and breaks his leg.
Who pays for their medical? Who pays for his time off of work?

You do.

Not the Landlord. The Landlord didn't leave the toy truck on the dining room floor.
The LL didn't fall asleep smoking a cig.

Renters insurance cost is about $12.00 to $14.00 a month for very good coverage. Check into it.

Also if your camera gets stolen out of your car. Most likely it will be covered by your renters insurance.

I hope I gave you some insight into the pro's of having renters insurance.

 

[justalayman]

with renters insurance, there are two different types of coverage;

1. personal property; this covers your personal property should something happen to it.

2. liability; this covers you for things you may be liable for such as your dog bites somebody or you leave a pan on the stove and burn down the building.


if you cause the fire, you are liable for the damages. The LL shouldn't have to suffer for your actions. This way, your policy will pay him for his losses attributable to you.

 

[TheFly]

I do have a renter's insurance policy. My issue is with the landlord being named as an additional insured on my policy.

 

[justalayman]

I do have a renter's insurance policy. My issue is with the landlord being named as an additional insured on my policy.

then don't sign the lease.

Another option would be to suggest he be named as loss payee rather than additional insured. That way he is assured he is paid by your policy if you have liability.

 

[TheFly]

I'm really surprised the responses have been so one sided. I guess that's what I get for posting in the real estate section instead of the insurance section.

I still believe these terms are unreasonable. Renter's insurance is intended to protect the renter from losses, not the landlord. A landlord should have his/her own insurance. Naming the landlord as an additional insured could clearly create a conflict. I have not been able to find any evidence that these terms are common in residential leases.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

A landlord should have his/her own insurance.

Q: Where would the landlord get the funds to pay the premiums for his/her own insurance?

A: From the rent.

Either way, you're paying for it.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Have you even spoken to your agent about the cost of adding the LL as an additional insured? I suspect you might be surprised at the result. It really is much more common than you think.

Incidentally, another big reason the LL wants to be an additional named insured and not merely a loss payee is because in the event the policy holder tenant fails to pay a premium, or otherwise lets the policy lapse, the carrier has to notify the additional insured, giving them some warning. If the were not listed on the policy, tenant could pay the first month's premium, show the LL the dec sheet as "proof" of coverage, and let the policy lapse the next month, with the LL none the wiser.