It would be in the best interest of the poster if counter information is supported by the counter-posters' own information, facts, and documentation. The daily arguments and troll behaviors are dull. The brightest of professionals and non-professionals (which you seem to be) know that their information and knowledge is limited to their field of exposure and expertise. Yet and still, these baseless contradictory posters seems to post in almost EVERY category available on the message board. This would make the posters at best a "Jack of all trades, Master of none." Having no professional knowledge or experience in ANYthing but the ability to be counterproductive.
AGAIN... Generally, property insurance companies only attempt to collect total reimbursement for malicious and intentional damages or criminal acts. In cases of accident, the insured property owner will receive compensation from the insurer, making only the deductibles unpaid. In cases of accidents, the claims adjusters only seek total damage recovery from other insurance companies. The tenant insurance does not cover premise damage and the claims adjuster will not likely attempt to recover costs from an individual.
(The legal and administrative costs outweigh the likelihood of collections. Those with business, legal, and financial management experience understand the concept. Those who don't, post counter remarks, just because... It's Free Advice.)
prove me wrong, in any of my posts.
while I have, and I'm sure will again, make mistakes, I do endevour to be as correcct as I can be. If you think a licensed attorney is always correct, apparently you have had very little experience with one.
So, as you so simply stated to me and zig;
provide suporting argument. prove me wrong.
and to this:
AGAIN... Generally, property insurance companies only attempt to collect total reimbursement for malicious and intentional damages or criminal acts.
first, you state; generally. That is such a wide desclaimer that it allows you to state this and appear to be correct if anybody has ever seen a situation where the insurance company did not attemtpt to recover it costs in a situation similar to this.
To that I say; read these forums very throroughly. There are many situations where a tenant negligently caused damage and the insurance company sued them to recover. Then, I will tell you I know a person that did pay the insurance company for negligent damage to an apartment, or actually owes. A couple hundred thousand dollars due to an accidental fire.
xylene:
Ah, see the negligence part.
I would suggest that the tenant's notification to the landlord of their intent to leave the apartment unit vacant for over 30 days
It doesn't matter what the tenant knew or did not know of common sense. Informing the landlord of intent to be absent and asking for guidance on special precautions, how much more care would be required?
That is why the landlord has shot themselves in the foot by not having a tenant duty to maintain heat explicitly in the lease - which is why such a provision is so very very common in leases of units with tenant paid / tenant controlled heating plants.
the negligence was on the part of the tenant. She turned OFF the heat.
While she claims "I didn't know", she has yet to answer my q about the coat.
Informing the LL about the absence does not reliever her of her duty to maintain her own apartment. The notification is not intended to cause the LL to take over daily maintainance of the building. It is merely a notice that if something does appear to be odd, the LL has been alerted to the fact the tenant is not there so then, they do need to intervene but it is still the tenants premises and under their control except for emergency situations.
