• 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.

legal? landlord now requires renter to carry liability ins. w/landlord as beneficiary

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

brusselea

Junior Member
just curious - my sister is renewing her lease at her apartment building.

Her renewal lease has the following paragraph in it:

As stated above, you have the option to provide your own liability insurance policy through your insurance agent as long as it meets the requirements listed above. Or you can purchase a policy through Grandridge Apartments for $10 per month which will be in addition to your monthly rent.Please note: Our new leases have the following clause:"Insurance: Tenant shall be obligated to maintain liability insurance protection for Landlord. Coverage is required in the amount of One hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for damage to Landlord's and third party's property with provisions covering at least perils of fire, explosion, sewer backup, smoke, and accidental water discharge. Landlord shall be named as an additional insured or listed as an interested Party on Tenant's policy. Such policy shall be written as a policy not contributing with and not in excess of coverage which landlord may carry. It is agreed that landlord carries insurance for its protection and that tenant is not a beneficiary of such insurance. Tenant shall be responsible to landlord for all costs of repair for damages as stated herein and in the lease regardless of insurance that landlord may carry. Tenant shall be automatically enrolled in liability insurance provided through landlord. The charges listed under Liability Insurance shall abate if Tenant procures its own insurance and meets the requirements outlined in this paragraph"


Is this for real???? I mean isn't it the landlord's responsability to carry this insurance and that's why he collects a security deposit?

Any idea if this is valid?

Thanks.
 


MIRAKALES

Senior Member
The property insurance which insures the premises is primarily for accidental damages caused to the premises and LL’s property. The premise insurance does not provide coverage to tenant’s property. Should tenant cause damages to the premises (fire, water, structure, etc.) LL’s insurer will hold tenant personally liable for accidental and intentional damages. Tenants that cause intentional and malicious damage are often sued by LL’s and LL’s insurer for major damages. This LL is simply being proactive to advise tenant of their liability should accidental or intentional damage occur due to tenant accident, negligence, fault, or intention.
Trust that a few hundred/thousand dollar security deposit will not cover catastrophic damages.
(The $100 cost of the insurance is relatively nominal in comparison to the $100,000 potential liability.)
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Yes, no, no and yes.

PS: [highlight]
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? [/highlight]
so how is this legit? I can understand if it was written as a policy to cover tenants liabilities to the landlord but this is wide open and allows a claim against the tenant supplied insurance regardless of fault.

Insurance: Tenant shall be obligated to maintain liability insurance protection for Landlord. Coverage is required in the amount of One hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for damage to Landlord's and third party's property with provisions covering at least perils of fire, explosion, sewer backup, smoke, and accidental water discharge. Landlord shall be named as an additional insured or listed as an interested Party on Tenant's policy
I just don;t see it.

as well, in this statement:

Tenant shall be responsible to landlord for all costs of repair for damages as stated herein and in the lease regardless of insurance that landlord may carry
It states nothing as to liability for at fault damages, but ALL damages.

So, to take this to the extreme;

if their was a city sewege back-up and it filled the OP's apt with effluent (nice way of saying crap), the LL could make claim on the tenants insurance policy for damages to the building itself.

I would think this would fall under the unconsionable clauses that would not be legally supported.

am I wrong here YAG?
 

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
I think you're reading too much into it. I'll go line-by-line and let me know where you disagree.
As stated above, you have the option to provide your own liability insurance policy through your insurance agent as long as it meets the requirements listed above.
Legal - LL's permitted to require tenants to carry insurance.
Or you can purchase a policy through Grandridge Apartments for $10 per month which will be in addition to your monthly rent.
Legal, and not a bad price.
Please note: Our new leases have the following clause:"Insurance: Tenant shall be obligated to maintain liability insurance protection for Landlord.
Legal - see first response.
Coverage is required in the amount of One hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for damage to Landlord's and third party's property with provisions covering at least perils of fire, explosion, sewer backup, smoke, and accidental water discharge.
Legal - LL's permitted both to set the required amount of insurance and the damages it should cover.
Landlord shall be named as an additional insured or listed as an interested Party on Tenant's policy.
Legal - and the whole point of this exercise.
Such policy shall be written as a policy not contributing with and not in excess of coverage which landlord may carry.
Legal - LL wants to keep LL's and Tenant's coverage separate.
It is agreed that landlord carries insurance for its protection and that tenant is not a beneficiary of such insurance.
Legal - although you can technically sometimes create third-party beneficiary status via mere actions, you usually need a contract. Ruling it out here is just good lawyering.
Tenant shall be responsible to landlord for all costs of repair for damages as stated herein and in the lease regardless of insurance that landlord may carry.
Legal - this clause merely says that Tenant doesn't get out of paying for damages for which Tenant is liable based on the fact that LL has insurance and wouldn't have been out any money out of pocket (which is what Tenants like to claim -- that they are only responsible for the LL's deductible.) In situations where the Tenant bears no responsibility for the damage, then this clause isn't triggered. This section merely means that the LL's insurance policy doesn't exculpate the responsible-for-the-damages-tenant from being primarily liable. (Yes, they are technically always liable, but subrogation actions are expensive which is why you want them to be primary - saves the expense of a subro lawsuit).
Tenant shall be automatically enrolled in liability insurance provided through landlord.
Legal - you either get your own or they're gonna get it for you. No uninsureds in thsi building!
The charges listed under Liability Insurance shall abate if Tenant procures its own insurance and meets the requirements outlined in this paragraph
Legal - LL cannot "double dip" by forcing you to get your own insurance but charging you for his.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Nevermind.(Emily Latella)


I somehow missed the fact it was LIABILITY insurance.:eek::eek:

It has since soaked into the brain.

thanks.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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