goldleader
Junior Member
What is the name of your state? New Jersey
I (the Tenant) am in the process of signing a 12 month lease to rent a condo, but my potential future landlord added a rider to my lease agreement that has made me uncomfortable.
The following is the unusual addition:
"Tenant agrees to carry and provide the Landlord with a tenant's insurance policy (HO4 Policy) with a minimum of $300,000 personal liability and fire and extended coverage for the tenant's personal property and possessions. Tenant shall name the Landlord as 'additional insuree'."
Requiring a tenant to carry renter's insurance is standard procedure, but requiring the tenant to add the Landlord to their policy is not. What also makes me nervous is the requirement for a minimum of $300,000 in coverage. Why is the Landlord so concerned about how much money I choose to insure my own property?
The following paragraph is already located in the residential lease agreement (and is standard in my area):
20. Insurance: The Tenant shall be responsible for obtaining, at Tenant's own cost and expense, a tenant's insurance policy for the Tenant's furniture, furnishings, clothing and other personal property. The Tenant's personal property shall not be the responsibility of the Landlord, and will not be insured by the Landlord. The tenant's insurance policy must also include liability coverage. Upon request, the Tenant shall periodically furnish Landlord with evidence of Tenant's insurance policy.
As you can see the above paragraph already sets the requirement for renter's insurance. although it does not name an exact amount of coverage.
If a fire destroyed everything in the unit, and my Landlord were an 'additional insuree' wouldn't my Landlord be able to collect on the money my insurance company paid to reimburse me for my property losses?
I have not signed the agreement yet, and told my Real Estate agent I would need to look at the agreement before signing. Should I demand that the rider paragraph be omitted? Am I being paranoid?
I (the Tenant) am in the process of signing a 12 month lease to rent a condo, but my potential future landlord added a rider to my lease agreement that has made me uncomfortable.
The following is the unusual addition:
"Tenant agrees to carry and provide the Landlord with a tenant's insurance policy (HO4 Policy) with a minimum of $300,000 personal liability and fire and extended coverage for the tenant's personal property and possessions. Tenant shall name the Landlord as 'additional insuree'."
Requiring a tenant to carry renter's insurance is standard procedure, but requiring the tenant to add the Landlord to their policy is not. What also makes me nervous is the requirement for a minimum of $300,000 in coverage. Why is the Landlord so concerned about how much money I choose to insure my own property?
The following paragraph is already located in the residential lease agreement (and is standard in my area):
20. Insurance: The Tenant shall be responsible for obtaining, at Tenant's own cost and expense, a tenant's insurance policy for the Tenant's furniture, furnishings, clothing and other personal property. The Tenant's personal property shall not be the responsibility of the Landlord, and will not be insured by the Landlord. The tenant's insurance policy must also include liability coverage. Upon request, the Tenant shall periodically furnish Landlord with evidence of Tenant's insurance policy.
As you can see the above paragraph already sets the requirement for renter's insurance. although it does not name an exact amount of coverage.
If a fire destroyed everything in the unit, and my Landlord were an 'additional insuree' wouldn't my Landlord be able to collect on the money my insurance company paid to reimburse me for my property losses?
I have not signed the agreement yet, and told my Real Estate agent I would need to look at the agreement before signing. Should I demand that the rider paragraph be omitted? Am I being paranoid?