Landlord as "additional insured"

[ecmst12]

If the dish damages his property, then he files a claim with the renter's insurance. They may or may not cover as the tenant may or may not be found negligent in this situation, but he can absolutely make the claim. Whether or not he is listed on the policy in ANY manner.

 

[moburkes]

so, you are disagreeing with the Washington state insurance commissioner as well as Progressive insurance and whatever that other insurance company I quoted from was?

Ok.



it covers the LL up to the limits of whatever the tenants policy is and the LL's policy would add to that.

I didn't see a specific coverage amount listed in anything I read only that a LL can, and should, be included as an additionally insured.


So, what about the court decision I referred to where the NY courts determined the LL was in fact an additionally insured, even if they were not specifically named?

We'll have to disagee. Progressive has never written homeowner's insurance, so I'm not sure how relevant anything written relating to Progressive applies here.

The NY court decision had to have been based on that particular policy form for that particular insurance company. Wouldn't apply to an ISO form which is written differently.

If a specific insurance company allows it, then they allow it, but the majority of additional insured and additional interest clauses are based on the ISO form, and they don't allow it. I didn't read the WA state thing you posted.

Like ecmst12, I think you're confusing a claimant with a loss payee. A loss payee has an ownership in the property being insured (which a landlord doesn't have, when you're talking about renters' insurance, since it covers contents, not the building). A claimant has some type of ownership in the property which was damaged, which doesn't belong to the insured.

 

[justalayman]

. I didn't read the WA state thing you posted.

here is the statement:

• Check your rental or lease contract with the landlord. The landlord may require you to carry specific limits of insurance for specific coverages, such as liability coverage. The landlord also may want you to name him or her as an additional insured for liability coverage on your renters policy.

and the page is concerning renters insurance, not commercial insurance. Simple renters insurance.

the Washington state insurance commissioner surely would not have stated such if he believed it to be inappropriate or illegal.



]

we are talking about liability. There is no insured property with a liability issue. It is simply a tenants liability that is being insured. The liability can be because of the dish, or a dog, or he kicked another person, or spit in the eye of a guy driving down the road and caused an accident.

liability, not property insurance.


]

Like ecmst12, I think you're confusing a claimant with a loss payee. A loss payee has an ownership in the property being insured (which a landlord doesn't have, when you're talking about renters' insurance, since it covers contents, not the building).

I don't think so. The two of you are confusing renters property insurance with renters liability insurance. A loss payee does not have to have an ownership in anything. They must have an insurable interest.


from: Boult, Cummings, Conners & Berry, PLC | Publications | The Basics of Insurance in Leases

G. Parties.

"Named Insured." The named insured is the party that pays the premium for the property or liability policy. The insurance company underwrites the policy and the premium based on the claims history and risk posed by the named insured. Subsidiaries of the named insured may be added as "additional named insureds." It is not appropriate for a lease to require the landlord or the tenant to be a "named insured" or "additional named insured" on the other's policy.

The landlord or the tenant can be added to the other's property policy as an "additional insured" or "loss payee." The added party can only recover if it has an insurable interest in the property of the insured. For instance, in the case of a ground lease, the landlord has an insurable interest in the building erected by the tenant, since it will revert to the landlord at the expiration of the lease. On the other hand, if a tenant in turn key space carried property insurance on its movable trade fixtures, the landlord would have very little, if any, insurable interest under the tenant's property insurance on the trade fixtures.

The landlord or the tenant can be added to the other's liability policy in as an "additional insured." The landlord or the tenant can be added to the other's property or liability policy as an additional insured only by an endorsement. When a party is added as an additional insured the negligent actions of the insured party will not defeat coverage of the additional insured under the policy. The additional insured has the independent right (regardless of the actions of the primary insured) to a defense under the insured's policy, which can supplement the indirect indemnification provisions under the lease. Further, if the lease does not contain a waiver of subrogation, being added as an additional insured prevents the insurance company from pursuing the additional insured for losses that it may have caused. If the additional party requires an endorsement making the insured's policy the "primary coverage", the insured's policy will pay any claims and must be exhausted prior to any claims under the liability policy carried by the additional insured.

The landlord or the tenant can be added to the other's property policy as a loss payee, which results in a mutual claim to the insurance proceeds. Being a loss payee is not as desirable as being an additional insured because the loss payee is subject to all defenses the insurer may have against the primary insured, and is only entitled to the insurance proceeds if the primary insured decides to pursue a claim.

I can find numerous sites, from both insurance companies and attorney's, that support the right of being named additional insured and also as loss payee.

but, I'll end it here. I am quite comfortable in my position, especially since I searched to find support for my position. I would suggest the both of you not he hard headed and do a little looking around to see what I have seen. I am not pulling this stuff out of my butt but from learning it via research.

 

[moburkes]

Justa, I've been doing this for a long time. Currently, I just helped launch a brand new insurance company in one of the states you've listed. I've seen insurance filings, and the group I work for have people who work for the department of insurance here. I've NEVER EVER seen a loss payee form for a renter's policy. I've never seen one. I'm currently working in personal lines, and my commercial lines experience is limited, today.

I've seen people ALL THE TIME mix up additional insured and additional interest. Heck, I've mixed them up from time to time. I've been an underwriter, and I currently work with a group of very meticulous underwriters. They wouldn't allow this. They wouldn't "approve" a filing (before it is sent to the state) with wording which would allow this.

I don't know what else to say. We'll have to agree to disagree. If his company doesn't allow it, and I don't blame them, I agree. That's it.

 

[justalayman]

i
I don't know what else to say. We'll have to agree to disagree. If his company doesn't allow it, and I don't blame them, I agree. That's it.

as I said, I won't beleaguer this anymore other than to say; I did find evidence that both additional insured and loss payee are both acceptable endorsements to a renters liability insurance. I believe I do understand both positions and I do believe they are proper positions for the LL given the situation.

but that aside; how the heck are ya? It's like you left the face of the Earth.