Vandalism denied due to Vacancy

[all4peace4all]

Florida

Good Afternoon, my rental home was vandalized for almost $20,000.
My insurance company denied it using a 30 day clause and a date the tenants used to turn off the water, which was 3 days before the 30 day clause.
The issue is my property manager was not notified until 5 days later and we have no proof they moved out the day the water was disconnected.
If a home is briefly vacant before the owner’s knowledge, how can we not be covered?
Is the property manager responsible for the loss if the insurance company denies it?
Thank you very much for any help!

 

[justalayman]

The issue is my property manager was not notified until 5 days later and we have no proof they moved out the day the water was disconnected.

If a home is briefly vacant before the owner’s knowledge,

doesn't anybody pay attention to what is going on at your property? Did these people just up and leave with no notice in the dark of the night? Did anybody notice the rent wasn't being paid and check to make sure your tenants were still alive?

Is the property manager responsible for the loss if the insurance company denies it?

Did he vandalize the property? Was there something he could/should have done to prevent this?

 

[all4peace4all]

more info

Good questions.
The property manager was responsible for collecting rent, monitoring the house, and did not notify us of this situation until they had turned off the water and moved out without paying. This was 7 days after they moved out and well beyond our agreed upon dates to collect and deposit rent.
He obviously did not follow-up or we would have known in a more timely manner.
So, to your questions, yes our rentals are well-cared for and not neglected.
Thanks!

 

[justalayman]

Good questions.
The property manager was responsible for collecting rent, monitoring the house, and did not notify us of this situation until they had turned off the water and moved out without paying. This was 7 days after they moved out and well beyond our agreed upon dates to collect and deposit rent.
He obviously did not follow-up or we would have known in a more timely manner.
So, to your questions, yes our rentals are well-cared for and not neglected.
Thanks!

your posts are confusing. In one, you speak as if you did not know when they moved within the month. Now you say you were alerted 7 days after they moved out. Was the water turned off over 3 weeks prior to that time?

 

[csi7]

You can file your concerns to the Florida Insurance Commission for help with the situation.

 

[moburkes]

Florida

Good Afternoon, my rental home was vandalized for almost $20,000.
My insurance company denied it using a 30 day clause and a date the tenants used to turn off the water, which was 3 days before the 30 day clause.
The issue is my property manager was not notified until 5 days later and we have no proof they moved out the day the water was disconnected.
If a home is briefly vacant before the owner’s knowledge, how can we not be covered?
Is the property manager responsible for the loss if the insurance company denies it?
Thank you very much for any help!

Did you have a owner-occupied homeowners policies or a dwelling fire policy (which means you have tenants)?

I'm confused like everyone else. Are you saying the tenants moved out 27 days before they turned off the water? If so, how would you know that?

But the answer to my 1st question above is more important. I'm not sure the department of insurance can help you. Likely the insurance company did exactly what your insurance policy states and denied the claim legally, but answer the 2 questions above and I will respond back.

 

[all4peace4all]

Thanks for the help

Thank you all for helping and sorry for the lack of clarity.
We were denied vandalism coverage on a fully insured rental home because the insurance company says the incident was 3 days beyond the 30 day window for coverage of a vacant dwelling.
My issue remains our property manger informed us that the renters moved out on the 17th of May and we used that as our date of vacancy.
We believe the damages occurred the 13 of June. The insurance company is using a May 10 date because that is when the tenant’s water was shut off and they insist lack of utilities is constitutes vacancy...even if we had no idea or if they lived there a few days without water.
The Property Management Company did not follow our agreed contract regarding late rent and carefully monitor the house and that was my second question about their liability.
Thanks and have a swell weekend.

 

[justalayman]

well, it would come down to what you can prove and testify to. If there is some proof they were there after May 13th, then you need to present it to the insurance company. If you do not know if they were there after the 13th, then you cannot argue they were and the water shutoff is as good of proof as anything else of when they left.

The facts are still a bit confusing but if you can relate the PM's negligence to act as contracted and that negligence caused your loss, then you might have a case against them. You should take your contract and a chronology of the situation to a lawyer and have them review it to determine if the PM does bear any liability.

 

[Zigner]

My issue remains our property manger informed us that the renters moved out on the 17th of May and we used that as our date of vacancy.

Do you mean that, on the 17th of May, your manager told you they had moved out?

The insurance company is using a May 10 date because that is when the tenant’s water was shut off and they insist lack of utilities is constitutes vacancy...even if we had no idea or if they lived there a few days without water.

Since the unit cannot be legally rented without water, the insurance company has a good point...

 

[tranquility]

This seems like an almost pure facts case. We all agree that insurance on a vacant property is more expensive then on an occupied one and that the 30 day window will be found to be a reasonable time to notify the insurance company of a vacancy--so that the increased amount is to be paid for the increased coverage.

When was the property "vacant"?

Since we're talking about $20K, I'd get an attorney to help build the case. I think the turning off of utilities is a good indicator of vacancy. Even if it isn't proof by case law, it is very persuasive evidence which the OP does not seem to have much to refute beyond, well, they *could* have still been there.

An attorney may also be useful to see if the management company breached any of their duties. Was the notification of the vacancy reasonable? I don't know. It might be, it might not be. Depending on all the circumstances.

 

[moburkes]

I think you've been given correct information by the other posters. Your theory that the date you were notified should be considered the date of the vacancy doesn't really fly. And, honestly, did you expect the property management company to drive by the property daily to determine what date it became vacated? If I had a rental property and the tenants weren't late, while I would start the proper eviction proceedings, I probably wouldn't have driven by daily to see if the tenants still occupied the property. I would have driven by, but not likely daily.

 

[JustAPal00]

This seems like an almost pure facts case. We all agree that insurance on a vacant property is more expensive then on an occupied one and that the 30 day window will be found to be a reasonable time to notify the insurance company of a vacancy--so that the increased amount is to be paid for the increased coverage.

Many companies won't cover a home that is vacant. So it may be more than just the increased premiun at issue here.

 

[moburkes]

Many companies won't cover a home that is vacant. So it may be more than just the increased premiun at issue here.

You're right, but that's at new business and at renewal. Once outside of freelook a company generally can't cancel for vacancy. That's why the policy is worded so that vacancies over 30 days aren't covered for vandalism. Otherwise they would have no "out" since they can't cancel (new business) or nonrenew yet. They're on the hook until the policy runs out.