Landlord wants to be Additional Insured

[kjf2004]

What is the name of your state? California

I recently got a letter from my landlord (i'm on a month-to-month after my lease expired) stating that I now have to carry renter's insurance, and that part I get and am fine with.

However, he also requires that the company be listed as an "additional insured".

Problem is, when I spoke with my insurance broker, I was told that none of the 30 companies they deal with would do such a thing. They've never added a landlord as an additional insured.

Three questions:

1. Is this legal?

2. Why would a landlord asked to be an additional insured?

3. Is there any way to keep the coverage I just got (without him listed - got a discount because I also have car insurance through the company) without naming him as he wishes?

Thanks!

 

[treese]

However, he also requires that the company be listed as an "additional insured".
1. Is this legal?

Yes.

2. Why would a landlord asked to be an additional insured?

It reduces the odds of the LL being sued.

Some insurance companies allow the landlord to collect damages against the tenant’s policy if the tenant causes any damage to the premises during the term of the lease.

Everyone listed on the policy will receive a notice of expiration/cancellation. This lets the LL know if you have cancelled or failed to renew your policy.

Most insurance companies will not automatically add the landlord as an additional insured but it will do so at no additional costs to the tenant if asked.

3. Is there any way to keep the coverage I just got (without him listed - got a discount because I also have car insurance through the company) without naming him as he wishes?

The LL has made naming him as an additional insured a REQUIREMENT.
If you do not, the LL can terminate your month to month tenancy.

 

[kjf2004]

unfair advantage given to Landlord?

After researching this on the web, I'm finding that this "additional insured" idea seems to be in commercial leases, not residential ones. Aren't residential leases meant to favor a tenant's rights? Doesn't adding the landlord give him an unfair legal advantage when it comes to disputes and legal actions? Ultimately, he's covered twice and I'm only covered once.

Also, if anyone has a link to where in California law it's stated that naming landlords as additional insureds on residential leases is legal, please include it. I'd love to see the exact wording.

Does anyone think it would be at all useful to first speak with my landlord and offer to sign some other form of agreement that would require me to fax or mail him periodic proof of continued insurance?

Can't help it, but a landlord expecting to be covered for losses to MY personal property seems absolutely ridiculous and uncalled for.

Thanks so much for the help, despite sad results.

 

[moburkes]

Its absolutely normal. Its absolutely legal. Your landlord wants to make sure that you keep the required insurance. The way they can do this is to be listed as additional insured/additional interest. They will NOT receive money for your personal property. They don't want to receive money for your personal property. They don't have an insurance interest in your personal property, only in the liability portion of the policy. They will be covered (in a small way) if you are sued due to negligence and they are named in the lawsuit. (Insurance companies aren't stupid. They're not going to pay your landlord for that damaged couch.)

And, yes, its a clause in the majority of the lease agreements that I've seen. The landlord wants to make sure that you don't go on the news and say that all your stuff is gone, and your landlord won't give you information so that you can contact his insurance company to get your stuff replaced. (Beacuse his insurance company doesn't cover your stuff.)

 

[treese]

Aren't residential leases meant to favor a tenant's rights?

No. Leases protect the rights of both parties.

Doesn't adding the landlord give him an unfair legal advantage when it comes to disputes and legal actions?

No.

Also, if anyone has a link to where in California law it's stated that naming landlords as additional insureds on residential leases is legal, please include it. I'd love to see the exact wording.

There is no law that forbids naming a LL as an additional insured. It is not illegal.

Does anyone think it would be at all useful to first speak with my landlord and offer to sign some other form of agreement that would require me to fax or mail him periodic proof of continued insurance?

Sure, but he has every right to reject your offer and terminate your tenancy.