Displaced and still paying full rent

[EasyBreezy]

What is the name of your state? What is the name of your state? CA

My family and I have been displaced from our home, the washing machine (that came with the rental) malfunctioned and flooded the entire first floor of the house. I contacted the landlord immediately who told me to try and get the water out the best I could, which we did. The next day the landlord and the restoration company the landlord (or her insurance, they are going through their H.O. insurance) hired moved all of our belongings out of the first floor and into our garage. We were told the property is uninhabitable while the necessary repairs and replacements are being made. Flooding happened on the 7th and we had to move out the following day, the 8th. Estimated to be out about a month. I contacted our renters insurance, paid my $500 deductible and was provided with a hotel while we are displaced.

I was just contacted by my renters insurance and asked to provide proof that I paid March’s rent, which I did in full. I asked if I was going to be charged the full month’s rent for April and I was told yes. So now I’ve paid March’s rent in full, April’s rent will be paid in full on the 1st, on top of my $500 deductible? So here is my question, do I just have to eat the $500 deductible I had to pay my renter’s insurance so that they could provide housing? How/ or who do I ask about this? I am not trying to get anything for free, I just want to be made whole.

Thanks for the help, this has been an overwhelming experience.

 

[Zigner]

Once you are back in the home, your renter's insurance should subrogate against the owner's insurance. Once they are reimbursed, you will get your deductible back.

 

[adjusterjack]

do I just have to eat the $500 deductible

Yes. Everybody eats their deductible any time they file a claim on their own policy. It's how it works.

I had to pay my renter’s insurance so that they could provide housing

No, you got renter's insurance because it was smart to have it. If you didn't have it you'd be paying for your own temporary lodgings in addition to paying rent.

Once you are back in the home, your renter's insurance should subrogate against the owner's insurance.

I wouldn't count on that. The washing machine malfunctioned. They do that sometimes. Sudden and unforeseen. That's not likely the owner's fault. And if it isn't, his insurance isn't going to pay the tenant's insurance company for the tenant's claim.

 

[Zigner]

Yes. Everybody eats their deductible any time they file a claim on their own policy. It's how it works.



No, you got renter's insurance because it was smart to have it. If you didn't have it you'd be paying for your own temporary lodgings in addition to paying rent.



I wouldn't count on that. The washing machine malfunctioned. They do that sometimes. Sudden and unforeseen. That's not likely the owner's fault. And if it isn't, his insurance isn't going to pay the tenant's insurance company for the tenant's claim.

If the owner has a landlord's policy (vs a standard homeowner's policy), then it should pay. I agree that any damage caused directly by the flood to the OP's belongings wouldn't be covered, but the LL is required to provide a habitable dwelling and is now unable to do so. The LL is responsible for the lodging costs, so his insurance should cover it.

 

[adjusterjack]

the LL is required to provide a habitable dwelling and is now unable to do so.

Section 1942 of the CA landlord tenant statute provides:

1942. (a) If within a reasonable time after written or oral notice to the landlord or his agent, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 1962, of dilapidations rendering the premises untenantable which the landlord ought to repair, the landlord neglects to do so, the tenant may repair the same himself where the cost of such repairs does not require an expenditure more than one month’s rent of the premises and deduct the expenses of such repairs from the rent when due, or the tenant may vacate the premises, in which case the tenant shall be discharged from further payment of rent, or performance of other conditions as of the date of vacating the premises. This remedy shall not be available to the tenant more than twice in any 12-month period.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1942.

According to that, the OP shouldn't be paying any rent during the period of restoration since he needed to vacate. I grant you that the LL should be waiving and/or refunding any rent collected during that period that the residence is untenantable.

But I see nothing in that statute that obligates the LL to pay for temporary lodging which would often be much more costly than rent.

As for landlord's liability insurance, I don't think so, but I don't happen to have a sample policy in my repertoire so I'll have to get back to you on that.

 

[adjusterjack]

Landlord's Liability Insurance - I found two sample policy forms. They both pay if the insured is "legally liable" just like homeowners liability or any business liability. That means the landlord would have to be proven negligent with regard to the malfunction of the washing machine. So, no, the landlord's liability insurance would not pay for the tenant's lodging as a result of the malfunction.

If the tenant had reported problems with the washing machine and the landlord failed to respond, that's when the landlord could be legally liable. But not for a sudden and unforeseen malfunction over which the landlord had no control.