Need advice on who should bare the repair cost, landlord/tenant?

[kiranya]

What is the name of your state? Missouri
I went to outside USA on vacation for a month. Since its a long duration, I visited my leasing office and updated them about my plan and new contact numbers. They did not advice me on any special care to be taken while I was gone. I turned the heat off with the intention that since its a long duration and no one to attend in case of any problem such as gas leak etc. After 10 days into the vacation, the leasing office contacted me that dishwasher pipe is bursted and that cause water to flood in my kitchen. Luckily they detected the issue at early stage and hence prevented major damage. But still the kicten cabinets and counter top which was swolen would need to be replaced. The leasing office is asking me to pay for the repair cost because it was my fault/negligence. They says its a common sense not to turn off the heat during winter season. Since I don't belong to this country, these common sense rules did not occur to me. Moreover they did not adviced me nor mentioned in the lease that this (turning off the heat) should not be done. I have renter's insurance but again that just covers my personal property damage and not to rental property damage. Please advice if I have to pay for the repair cost for something which happened when I was not here for whole month.

Regards,
Kiran

 

[MIRAKALES]

It is not necessarily “common sense” to maintain the heat at a minimal temperature (at lease 50°-52° degrees) during the winter season. (Many tenants and non-homeowners do not know this.) Nevertheless, the resulting damages were still caused by the tenant’s action, making the tenant responsible for the damages and repair needed to replace cabinets, countertops, plumbing (possibly dishwasher hoses), and water damage. Dishwasher hoses are the first to leak or break in extreme cold. And, with the constant flow of water to the dishwasher, there is no way to prevent flooding while unattended. In extreme cold, toilets and tanks can also crack from standing water that freezes.
Tenant did advise the leasing office of the extended leave, putting management on notice that premises would be vacant for at lease a month. With that said, (although not obligated to) management should have known to at least remind tenant how to winterize the premises. The property insurance will compensate management for damages and repairs. Tenant will probably only be obligated to pay insurance deductible. Hope it works out with management.

 

[justalayman]

Tenant will probably only be obligated to pay insurance deductible. Hope it works out with management.

while most of your post makes sense and is more or less correct, this last sentence is way off the mark.

Chances are the insurance company will seek to reclaim their money from the tenant.

kiranya; since this happened only 10 days after you left the apartment, I suspect it was cold well before you left on vacation and as such, it was totally your fault for the damage. You have no reasonable excuse. Even the

Since I don't belong to this country, these common sense rules did not occur to me.

story does not have any validity.

One question;

did you own a winter coat capable of keeping you protected in sub-freezing weather while you lived in this apartment?

 

[BL]

Any damages caused by the tenant or tenant's neglect , the tenant pays for .

You rented in the United States , you are bound by united States landlord tenant laws .

Not knowing the law is no excuse . They weren't required to tell you common sense .

 

[MIRAKALES]

Generally, property insurance companies only attempt to collect total reimbursement for malicious and intentional damages or criminal acts. In cases of accident, the insured property owner will receive compensation from the insurer, making only the deductibles unpaid. In cases of accidents, the claims adjusters only seek total damage recovery from other insurance companies. The tenant insurance does not cover premise damage and the claims adjuster will not likely attempt to recover costs from an individual.

 

[COlandlord]

Keep in mind that the landlord may choose not to go thru their insurance (which is their right). Depending on the cost of repairs, the landlord may pay for it out of their own pocket and charge the full amount back to the tenant.

 

[Zigner]

Generally, property insurance companies only attempt to collect total reimbursement for malicious and intentional damages or criminal acts. In cases of accident, the insured property owner will receive compensation from the insurer, making only the deductibles unpaid. In cases of accidents, the claims adjusters only seek total damage recovery from other insurance companies. The tenant insurance does not cover premise damage and the claims adjuster will not likely attempt to recover costs from an individual.

I'd like you to back this drivel up...

 

[justalayman]

I'd like you to back this drivel up...

You're nicer than I am. I was simply going to say s/he is full of sh!t!

 

[MIRAKALES]

I'd like you to back this drivel up...

You're nicer than I am. I was simply going to say s/he is full of sh!t!

It would be in the best interest of the poster if counter information is supported by the counter-posters' own information, facts, and documentation. The daily arguments and troll behaviors are dull. The brightest of professionals and non-professionals (which you seem to be) know that their information and knowledge is limited to their field of exposure and expertise. Yet and still, these baseless contradictory posters seems to post in almost EVERY category available on the message board. This would make the posters at best a "Jack of all trades, Master of none." Having no professional knowledge or experience in ANYthing but the ability to be counterproductive.

AGAIN... Generally, property insurance companies only attempt to collect total reimbursement for malicious and intentional damages or criminal acts. In cases of accident, the insured property owner will receive compensation from the insurer, making only the deductibles unpaid. In cases of accidents, the claims adjusters only seek total damage recovery from other insurance companies. The tenant insurance does not cover premise damage and the claims adjuster will not likely attempt to recover costs from an individual.
(The legal and administrative costs outweigh the likelihood of collections. Those with business, legal, and financial management experience understand the concept. Those who don't, post counter remarks, just because... It's Free Advice.)

 

[Zigner]

AGAIN... Generally, property insurance companies only attempt to collect total reimbursement for malicious and intentional damages or criminal acts.

And, AGAIN - I'd like you to post some supporting information to your (misleading) statement. If you have some sort of study or statistical backup, I'll happily agree.

 

[xylene]

I find it very odd that the tenants responsibility to maintain heat was not explicitly specified in the lease.

It is true that the OP's being a foreigner is not relevant. BUT

The lack of an explicit duty in the lease for the tenant to maintain heat along with the notice of tenant absence for a full month hardly make a slam dunk if the landlord were to sue.

Common sense is no where near as strong as a written lease obligation.

 

[ecmst12]

Insurance companies are not in the business of paying out money when their insured is not liable for the damages and someone else is. Rest assured, if tenant is liable (and he is, intentional or not), and LL's insurance pays out, they WILL attempt to recover the FULL amount that they pay out. How FAR they will take the recovery attempt depends on several factors, but at the very least OP can look forward to receiving a bill in the mail, and likely being sent to a collection agency if he does not pay. That is how insurance companies stay in business.

 

[BL]

I find it very odd that the tenants responsibility to maintain heat was not explicitly specified in the lease.

It is true that the OP's being a foreigner is not relevant. BUT

The lack of an explicit duty in the lease for the tenant to maintain heat along with the notice of tenant absence for a full month hardly make a slam dunk if the landlord were to sue.

Common sense is no where near as strong as a written lease obligation.

A lease does not have to explicitly state the State law to be enforceable .

Also , just because the tenant does not understand or know it , doesn't absolve the tenant from liability .


Per State Law Guide:

Tenants should pay for damages resulting from their own negligence or the negligence of a guest

 

[ecmst12]

Further, Renters insurance DOES cover damage to LL property if tenant is LIABLE for the damage. Wouldn't be much point to having it otherwise. Losing all your stuff in a house fire sucks, but not as bad as being sued by the LL, and the upstairs and downstairs neighbors, for damage to the building and the neighbors property because you don't have insurance and fire marshal says the fire is your fault (happened to a friend of mine). The most important part of renters insurance is the LIABILITY portion.

 

[xylene]

Per State Law Guide:

Tenants should pay for damages resulting from their own negligence or the negligence of a guest

Ah, see the negligence part.

I would suggest that the tenant's notification to the landlord of their intent to leave the apartment unit vacant for over 30 days

It doesn't matter what the tenant knew or did not know of common sense. Informing the landlord of intent to be absent and asking for guidance on special precautions, how much more care would be required?

That is why the landlord has shot themselves in the foot by not having a tenant duty to maintain heat explicitly in the lease - which is why such a provision is so very very common in leases of units with tenant paid / tenant controlled heating plants.