Have 2 Agree to Absolve Insurance Co. & Landlord From Any Future UNRELATED Incidents?

[GoThrough]

Have 2 Agree to Absolve Insurance Co. & Landlord From Any Future UNRELATED Incidents?

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Massachusetts.

Is it legal for a homeowners insurance company to make you sign something that absolves them and the landlord from all future UNRELATED issues if they pay out an insurance claim to a renter? I am asking this because my landlord is a deadbeat who has had Code Enforcement called on her by many tenants for many things, and I don't trust that there will never be an issue again. I've never had to make a claim against anyone for anything before, and never intend to again, but she is reckless and I don't want to sign my life away in case something happens again that will force me to cover medical bills and things like that that happen due to her neglect. I understand why they want to be absolved from anything to do with this incident again, but is it ok to absolve her and them from everything ever? I wouldn't even think twice about signing it, if it weren't for the fact that I know she is negligent, and this will give her even more of an incentive to be negligent. I feel so frustrated. What happens if her negligence causes something even worse to happen in the future? I have no recourse? I just don't want to be stuck with a mountain full of bills due to her own negligence again. I've already let it go a number of times, and just eaten the cost of stuff, because I'm not the type of person who likes to confront people. I am just scared that this will end up screwing me if something really earth-shattering happens. Which, with her as the landlord, sadly doesn't seem out of the realm of reality.


So is it legal for someone to even have that in a contract? That if something has nothing to do with this incident, there's nothing you can ever do?

I almost feel like it's not worth it to sign it, but it is not fair to me to not be compensated for the medical bills and time on the job lost due to her neglect. Especially since to this day, I am still suffering from the physical effects of the injury.

I am just terrified that her knowing she will be absolved, will cause her to be even more negligent in the future. I was hoping that this would result in her being a better and safer landlord (which is what it certainly would do for me), but it seems like it'll do the reverse.

 

[GoThrough]

By the way, it's just frustrating going through any of this at all. Because I'm so easy-going, I initially just asked the landlord to pay half of the medical bills (I would have just eaten all of them, as is my nature, but my deductible had changed for that year).

At the time I thought it was weird for her to prefer to make a claim, rather than just pay half of the medical bills, but now I'm thinking that this may be the reason why. She knows the likelihood of her colossally screwing up in the future is high, so she may be doing this so that she will never be held accountable in the future. Is that likely?

It's just annoying, because I feel like I've been extremely nice from the beginning. And this is not even a remotely questionable case. The insurance company got numerous, varied, sworn statements about her neglect, and about how this was blatantly due to her neglect (neighbors talked about how this was always bound to happen, and she never maintained the property). I could have really went after her for all of the headache and physical injury I am STILL recovering from, but I'm just not that type of person. I don't like drama, and I just simply didn't want to pay all of the medical bills that was solely caused by her not maintaining the property. She is lucky I'm not aggressive and forthright like most people.

I just really wish I had faith that she would be a safe and good landlord in the future. If I had that faith, this wouldn't be a problem. I feel torn up about this.

 

[sandyclaus]

Yes, it is legal to get a renter to sign a waiver of liability. Whether or not the waiver is legally binding would depend on the circumstances under which liability is assigned in a specific situation.

What EXACTLY did the insurance company reimburse you for that was allegedly all the LL's fault? (And please keep it brief and to the point. All of the drama does no good to determine the right response to the question.)

 

[GoThrough]

First, thank you for your help. I think it's great that people are willing to volunteer their time like this. It's very helpful.

They are reimbursing me for my medical bills, time off from work, and payment for my injury. I fell on ice that was not taken care of, and had to be transported by ambulance. I did not even specifically ask for anything (beyond stating that I would like to be reimbursed for my medical bills and loss job time). The insurance company on their own decided on what the payment would be. I also did not seek out anything as far witnesses or anything like that. That was the doing of the insurance company and my own neighbors volunteering info.

I just posted that to make it understood that there is no issue as far as the claim was concerned. My landlord had no problem with it, nor did the insurance company, etc. Like I said, the landlord was the one who wanted it to go through insurance.

Could you expand more on your initial statement please? Would it be legally binding that she'd be legally absolved of ANYTHING unrelated, even things resulting in death, in the future?

Would you recommend someone signing something like that?

I just was shocked to read something so sweeping.

This was coming directly from the insurance company and adjuster, by the way. Not even from her. That's what makes it even more weird to me. The wording was worded to include HER being absolved of anything ever too. But I know that it was the insurance company that wrote this statement.

And just so you know, the payment is not a huge amount. Just stating that because I assume that may make a difference as far as what you think about the waiver. If it were a huge amount, I guess something like this would make more sense. For such a small settlement, though (less than $5,000), it seems weird that they would use wording that's so sweeping, and wording that would include her, which seems to be even independent from them.

I am using the word "settlement" by the way, because I don't know what else to call it. I don't know what the proper term would be. Settlement would imply there was a dispute, but there wasn't. I guess "claim" would be proper. Like I said, I didn't even choose the amount, and don't know exactly how they come up with it.


Edited to add: Re-reading that again, I don't mean to cause further confusion with the word settlement. This is not a settlement, this is an insurance company claim. Nothing ever came from her, lawyers, or from me or any lawyers. No lawsuit or anything was ever involved. It was simply her homeowners insurance, and this letter is from her homeowner's insurance company and underwriter.

I don't think that she was even involved in any of this. I get the impression that this is the standard-bearer way that this insurance company does business and writes contracts.

Thanks again, in advance for your help.

 

[sandyclaus]

Are they trying to require you to sign this release before you can receive the insurance payout? Because I do not believe that it would be in your best interest to do so.

 

[GoThrough]

Are they trying to require you to sign this release before you can receive the insurance payout?

Because I do not believe that it would be in your best interest to do so.

Yes, that is exactly what it's called! A release. And yes, they want me to sign it before I can receive the payout.

Yeah, in my gut that is how I feel. So I guess it's best to just not accept it? It seems really unfair, though.

Do you think maybe I should go show the release to a lawyer off-line and see what they think? Do you think there's any chance it wouldn't be fully legally-binding as far as she's concerned for any unrelated incident? I just wish that I could trust that there won't be something horrible that could potentially happen in the future.

If you don't think that there's any chance that it wouldn't be fully-legally binding, then I won't bother to go to a lawyer. I really don't want to spend money to get an opinion/confirmation on this, if it seems certain what that opinion/confirmation will be. If you think that maybe there is some uncertainty, than maybe I will ask a lawyer for confirmation.

This whole situation is depressing me.

Thanks again, for everything.

 

[ecmst12]

You ALWAYS sign the release before you get the payment. They don't cut the check until the release is signed. But the release is worded "in exchage for XX compensation" or something to that effect - so it doesn't become binding until you actually get the compensation.

 

[GoThrough]

You ALWAYS sign the release before you get the payment. They don't cut the check until the release is signed. But the release is worded "in exchage for XX compensation" or something to that effect - so it doesn't become binding until you actually get the compensation.

Yeah, that is why I decided to ask here before signing and accepting the payment. I really feel like I shouldn't now.

In your experience, do you know if what I'm saying is the stuff that insurance companies typically put into contracts? And do you want to weigh in on whether that would really absolve her personally from anything (including death) that would ever be unrelated to this? Even if this insurance release is not even coming from her or her lawyers and seems to be a standard-bearer insurance company thing?

Do insurance companies typically include language like that?

Thank you for your help as well!