Most Tenants Don't Bother with Renter's Insurance

[applecruncher]

(Not a question; hope it's okay to post this)

Survey: Most Tenants Don’t Bother With Renters Insurance | Multi-Housing News Online

Survey: Most Tenants Don’t Bother With Renters InsuranceHeadline News, Midwest, News, Today's Headlines
Jul 27, 2010
Dees Stribling, Contributing Editor

Chicago–According to a recent report by Apartments.com, most apartment dwellers don’t have renters insurance–some 67 percent, in fact. That’s the case even though renters are 50 percent more likely to experience theft than those who own homes, notes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a part of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Apartments.com, an Internet-based apartment listing subscription service, surveyed 1,400 apartment-hunters nationwide on the question of renters insurance. The top reason survey respondents gave for not being covered is that they cannot afford it, followed closely by many who claim they didn’t know this type of insurance existed. Other respondents believe they don’t need renters insurance because their possessions are not valuable enough to make the investment worthwhile and that “nothing bad has ever happened to them.”

While nearly a quarter of apartment-seekers surveyed are under the assumption that renters insurance costs too much, the average premium is under $200 a year, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The majority of Apartments.com survey respondents who do buy renters insurance said they pay on average $12.50 a month or less, and one out of 10 renters said they have had to use their insurance at one time or another.

The survey respondents who have insurance cited the following hazards as reasons for buying their policies: theft (79 percent); fire/lightening (70.7 percent); water damage (52.3 percent); other weather damage (e.g. hail, windstorm) (40.5 percent); and smoke damage (40.6 percent).
Some multifamily management companies and landlords also see value in renters insurance for their tenants. While most would likely prefer residents to carry renters insurance, nearly 20 percent of survey respondents said it’s mandatory at their apartment community.

“Tenants should have renter’s insurance for a couple of major reasons,” Bruce Sutherland, an apartment landlord in Melbourne Beach, Fla., and keeper of the Successful Landlord Blog, tells MHN. “They should have it to protect their belongings from major perils such as theft and fire, and also carry it should they become liable for a visitor’s slip and fall, for instance. In fact, I feel so strongly that they should carry renter’s insurance that it’s required as part of the lease agreement I sign with them.”

 

[Gail in Georgia]

A fair number of tenants believe the landlords insurance will cover both them and their personal belongings.

Gail

 

[alex468]

a world of object-worshipping lunatics

There are many people on this planet, even in the USA, who do not buy expensive things or even cheaper, new things. I'm actually proud to be one of those people. We look at many other people on this planet, especially in the USA, and wonder about their priorities and their way of life. You lot seem to worship objects that break or get thrown away. You seem freakin' insane.

When I have the money saved up, I take a trip to a national park or to the Caribbean, Europe, or Australia. I own a laptop that's worth about $1000, and the sum total of all other objects I keep in the apartment are worth about another $1000. Renters insurance minimum coverage is typically $10k-$25k and the deductibles might start at $250.

If the numbers cited are accurate and only one out of 10 renters have ever had to use their insurance, do you think it's worthwhile from a logical analysis of risks and benefits for someone like me to spend $200 per year to insure $2000 worth of property? Do you really think the risk that someone I invite to my apartment will slip, fall, and sue me for large amounts is such a high risk that this chance should enter into the equation?

Here's the original press release about the survey: Apartments.com | MAJORITY OF RENTERS DO NOT CARRY RENTERS INSURANCE

Plug this statement into your truth-meter:

"Survey results indicate that more renters would like their management company or landlord to require renters insurance for all renters..."

Is it human nature to EVER like someone to REQUIRE something from you?

And, hey look, the survey was conducted by Apartments.com in collaboration with Assurant Specialty Property who coincidentally sells renters insurance. What a coincidence! Go figure.

 

[QueenofEngland]

The article is suspicious. I'm not going to trust an article written by someone with something to sell related to the article.

We also don't know the pool of renters supposedly surveyed. If renters would like renters insurance required when others having it or not doesn't effect them, then they can get it themselves. I'd bet that the participants were carefully selected to include only those who own property or who have recently sustained a loss. I mean, I think it'd be good if more people had it, but what business is it of mine or anyone else's how others choose to protect or not protect their belongings?

I've also only ever seen apartments require liability insurance, not insurance to protect personal belongings. The personal belongings was "heavily recommended" and to buy from a very certain company, but only liability was required. My last apartment required $1mil in liability insurance from one specific company.

 

[davew128]

My complex required liability insurance starting about 18months ago, and I found just about impossible to find a carrier that sold only liability insurance without property coverage. There was a provider who did so (the recommended carrier from the management company) but their premium was identical to that from another carrier that included property coverage. Guess which one I went with.....

 

[cyjeff]

"Survey results indicate that more renters would like their management company or landlord to require renters insurance for all renters..."

Is it human nature to EVER like someone to REQUIRE something from you?.

Boy, are you gonna hate ObamaCare....

 

[alex468]

Well now...this thread is veering off into something completely unrelated, but since you brought it up...

I live in Mass and support the health-insurance requirement (or tax penalty) that already exists in this state. People without health insurance already receive care in emergency wards that everyone else is forced to pay for, so nationwide ObamaCare makes perfect sense from a risk/benefit perspective except to people who I label "braindead rightwing tea-party nutjobs who not only worship property but also seem to worship death itself."

But of course I might be a little biased.

 

[cyjeff]

Well now...this thread is veering off into something completely unrelated, but since you brought it up...

I live in Mass and support the health-insurance requirement (or tax penalty) that already exists in this state. People without health insurance already receive care in emergency wards that everyone else is forced to pay for, so nationwide ObamaCare makes perfect sense from a risk/benefit perspective except to people who I label "braindead rightwing tea-party nutjobs who not only worship property but also seem to worship death itself."

But of course I might be a little biased.

Just because I retain my " human nature to EVER like someone to REQUIRE something from you" makes me a nutjob?

So when YOU don't want to do what the man says you are some kind of a Freedom Fighter, but I am a nutjob?

I also challenge you to find ONE person against the current healthcare plan that does so in the sincere hope that more people die.

If all you hear is what you wish to hear, then you will never hear the truth.

 

[applecruncher]

A fair number of tenants believe the landlords insurance will cover both them and their personal belongings.

Gail

Yes, then when something happens they're up a creek.

I was surprised that the percentage is so high. I mean, I know a lot of people don't have renter's ins, but it's cheap and so many don't even look into it. I say give up 2 packs of cigarettes or 2 big macs a month.

 

[alex468]

Those who are against ObamaCare deny themselves the opportunity to pay for sick, poor people in a more efficient manner than they presently do. So, in my view, yes, that desire to have more required from them by maintaining the status quo makes them braindead nutjobs.

But perhaps I should explain myself further. An individual person with this view may be either braindead because he or she is ill informed about this present requirement and about how ObamaCare will decrease that requirement or he/she may be a nutjob due to being informed but nevertheless denying reality. It's true that a single individual with this view might not be both braindead and a nutjob, but labeling the entire class of people as both seems to be correct in a collective sense.

I certainly understand that there are irrational people out there who--due to their braindeadishness and/or nutjobbery--want the current state of health care in the US to continue unchanged, and I freely confess to throwing in labels such as "death-worshiping" to add bombastic flair because it satisfies me as a patriot to insult those who wish to harm our country.

As for my view on renters insurance, I certainly never claimed to be a Freedom Fighter and had no intention of offending those who spend their lives pursuing property and objects. I've made a point of refraining from using the word "you." I think it leads to a more civil discourse. Don't you?

 

[Andy0192]

Well now...this thread is veering off into something completely unrelated, but since you brought it up...

I live in Mass and support the health-insurance requirement (or tax penalty) that already exists in this state. People without health insurance already receive care in emergency wards that everyone else is forced to pay for, so nationwide ObamaCare makes perfect sense from a risk/benefit perspective except to people who I label "braindead rightwing tea-party nutjobs who not only worship property but also seem to worship death itself."

But of course I might be a little biased.

I find it ironic that someone who supports the idea of being self-insured for renter's insurance, makes such a complete counter-argument for Health Insurance.

People who take care of their own health, and by choice (or by luck) rarely visit the Emergency room are NOT given free health care by the Hospital. They can simply pay for what they use, which by your own previous argument would make much more sense than over-paying for un-needed coverage.

If having Health Insurance prevents death, please sign me up for $1,000,000,000 worth of immortality, please.

 

[davew128]

I live in Mass and support the health-insurance requirement (or tax penalty) that already exists in this state. People without health insurance already receive care in emergency wards that everyone else is forced to pay for, so nationwide ObamaCare makes perfect sense from a risk/benefit perspective except to people who I label "braindead rightwing tea-party nutjobs who not only worship property but also seem to worship death itself."

But of course I might be a little biased.

Well I'm originally from Mass, and actively fought against it when I was there. Here is what I saw and encountered and feel free to say I'm right at any point.

1) The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a similar law regarding employer mandates in Maryland at about the time this law went through. ERISA preempts state mandates. Nobody in the legislature wanted to hear it.
2) The DOR when soliciting public comments on the Form HC-1099 and SCH HC was told by many tax practitioners that the information it was asking for on the form was not allowable because of HIPAA. DOR is not a governmental agency exempt from HIPAA. I was told personally by the DOR's general counsel that they didn't think HIPAA applied. See where this is going?
3) A local state representative had a speaking appearance in my firm in October of 2006, promoting Kerry Healy for governor. He than got around to talking about his opinion of the individual health insurance mandate and how he thought it was somehow unconstitutional to force someone to do something. I then asked him why he voted for it then (the legislature's vote was unanimous in favor). Silence prevailed.
4) If you're wondering why nobody has challenged the employer mandate, here's why: The employed mandate was designed in such a way that the cost for failure to comply is low enough for most employers who don't already provide and contribute to health insurance premiums that it is cheaper for most of them to pay the penalty, moreover, the cost of litigating the issue all the way to the 1st Circuit and getting the law tossed is beyond what most employers who are being harmed can afford. Which is pretty much how the Mass legislature has always operated. If Fidelity or Gillette wanted to fight the law, trust me it would go down HARD.

 

[alex468]

People who take care of their own health, and by choice (or by luck) rarely visit the Emergency room are NOT given free health care by the Hospital. They can simply pay for what they use, which by your own previous argument would make much more sense than over-paying for un-needed coverage.

I think analogies between health issues and issues involving property/objects may be deeply rooted in the shared ante-bellum past of the US. In most other parts of the Western world, the distinction between health insurance and property/liability insurance is patently obvious. But I suppose we are all products of our culture and upbringing.

"People who take care of their own health" does not have the same meaning as "people who do not have health insurance." The two phrases are unrelated. Conflating the ideas behind the two phrases is what I find to be truly ironic, and it has resulted in the paragraph above that might argue for something, but it's an argument that someone like me who uses the English language with precision is unable to decipher. Because of that lack of precision, I'm unable to reply to you because I don't understand what you wrote.

 

[davew128]

Those who are against ObamaCare deny themselves the opportunity to pay for sick, poor people in a more efficient manner than they presently do. So, in my view, yes, that desire to have more required from them by maintaining the status quo makes them braindead nutjobs.

I wasn't aware it was my responsibility to pay for others. Thanks for re-edjamacating me.

 

[alex468]

I wasn't aware it was my responsibility to pay for others. Thanks for re-edjamacating me.

You are required to pay for others now and you have been for decades, whether you like it or not, whether you think it's your responsibility or not. See "The Costs of Lack of Health Insurance" at

http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/access/cost.pdf

for a (six-year old) breakdown of costs borne by the uninsured, employers, the government, the general public, and so on. You may be confusing the ethics-neutral word "required" with the ethically charged word "responsible." You've been required to pay more because of people who don't have health insurance. Later, when more people have health insurance, you'll be required to pay less.