the fact that in cvilles situation that the tenants insurance paid the request fo payment does not mean that is what is required. It simply means that they paid the bill.
I was actually alerted to this possibility several years ago when discussing an incident police report with a county police officer. Since I have never seen a newer renter's insurance policy, it never occurred to me that the tenant's coverage would pay. I cleaned up a property after an "egging" sent the bill to the tenant and the tenant's insurance paid/reimbursed me....sorry guys.
and you you ask a county cop about liability laws? Ya, I can see you getting the straight and correct answer there alright...NOT. The fact they did pay does not mean they were required to. Renters insurance cover the renters property and if they purchase it, the renters liabilities surrounding the property. This in no way makes them resposible for a 3rd party action on the builiding.
Frankly, a $200 claim on an owner's policy is not worth it so paying it out of pocket was our option untill I suggested the tenant submit to their insurance which worked.
again, that does not mean they were required to pay it. I have no idea what the claim reported. It may have been worded so the insurance company understood the damage to be the renters liability so they paid it. They may have paid it as a mistake. Who knows?
The tenant knowing or not knowing the vandals is not a issue.
You're right. Unless the tenants did something to cause the action they are not liable in either case.
I can see a great scam happening with this one. The house burns down, sue the tenant 'cuz cville says they are liable.
Try again.