| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Jportillo
USA
17 Posts |
 Posted - 02/18/2004 : 09:25:36
|
| I was called out to a fire job this weekend to evaluate some damage.I started speaking to the young lady that I presumed was the Homeowner. I asked her if she had insurance. She told me yes I have it through my landlord.First red flag. I asked what she meant by having insurance through her landlord was he an Insurance agent or what. She told me that her landlord had Insurance on the house and was charging her each month for the premium.Second red Flag. I asked her if she had filed a claim and who her insurance was, she responded that here landlord was handling that portion of it.Third red Flag. I explained to the Renter that the house if it had the right coverage would be fixed , but that her contents would not be covered by this gentlemans insurance because he was renting the house to her and it was her obligation to get renters insurance. Was I correct in saying so? I feel this lady was taking advantage of by this man and my heart went out to her. To think you were covered and to find out you aren't. I simply gave her some numbers to local orginizations that could help her get clothes and personal things for her 5 kids. I simply told her we would take her contents clean and store them for her at no charge until she found a new place to stay. I would like to know what legal rights does this lady have against her landlord for decieving her the way he did. Can someone who rents a house to someone else make them pay their insurance on their house and if they do are the renters covered? Thanks for the information and GOD Bless. |
|
|
C Bond
32 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 10:37:51
|
| The term "Rent" can sometimes be used as a catch-all for many different real estate occupation arrangements between landlord and tenant. You will have to give more info in order for the Forum to assist you. e.g. What type of policy? Who is the named insured? What coverages are provided. Specifically, what is the instrument that was used to determine the relationship between the renter/buyer and the landlord/seller. This may possibly be a rent-to-own situation. Your landlord may or may not be taking advantage of his customer. |
 |
|
|
Jim Lakes
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 10:41:27
|
jportillo,
You were correct in your “Red Flag alerts.” There would be no coverage for this tenant in any way.
You are also right, in that she is responsible for providing her own insurance on her contents.
One cannot purchase a policy on someone else, unless they have a “financial interest” in what they are insuring.
I would suggest that you check with the carrier that you are working for before you commit to removing, cleaning and storing the tenant’s property also. I do not believe that this is covered either. It is the total responsibility of tenant to remove their property from the building, not yours.
If the landlord has provided her with coverage for her contents, she should ask for a copy of the policy and if he cannot provide one, then she should seek counsel, if he was charging her a premium and told her she had coverage for her contents.
Good luck.
Jim Lakes, RPA
V.P. RAC Catastrophe Services
513.894.2000
|
|
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 11:34:53
|
Try and settle one like that over the phone from off shore outsource.
The poster may have created estoppel by authorizing contents removal.
Without knowing what policy is in force and effect, or rental agreement is in place the loss is a crap shoot.
The insured may be named on the policy.
The rental agreement may be one that includes the cost of insurance and she ,by contract, is a beneficiary.
Policy always first.
Check your E&O. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 19:33:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by katadj
Policy always first.
While I think I understand what Dave is saying and not necessarily disagreeing with his statement, it is important to remember that while the policy (generally) will determine coverage, there are certain times and situations wherein condominium documents and leases can and will be the determining factor in whether a loss is covered or not (by a specific policy).
In situations involving damages to a condominium unit or where leasehold interests and improvements are at issue, obviously if there were no underlying policy, there would be no coverage, but equally important, definitions or "ownership" or responsibility for repairs/replacement may well be defined by the language within a lease or condo doc, as opposed to the insurance policy.
Additional issues of indemnity response can be further clouded by a determination of primary versus excess coverage(s).
Even further policy complexities arise when the cause of loss is triggered by a third party damage action creating a property claim where there is also a leasehold interest combined with fee simple tenancy, and the 3rd party is neither owner nor tenant, and there are now 3 distinct insurance policies under which a determination of which [one(s)] pays for what, comes into question.
So to add to Dave's statement, the real question the adjuster sometimes must ask and answer, is 'which' policy comes first. |
Edited by - JimF on 02/18/2004 19:48:22 |
|
|
|
Jim Lakes
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 21:21:55
|
To All,
I agree with all poster's so far. I know I should not have assumed that this was a standard fire policy with some endorsements, however I did.
If this is a real live claim lets hear what policy you are really dealing with.
Let's have some more good questions like this one from some of you who read and never respond.
Jim Lakes |
|
|
|
Type R 1090
Canada
14 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 21:40:02
|
For some reason, there seems to be a great misunderstanding out there by the general public about rental insurance. A lot of tenants I run across don't seem to be aware that you can even buy tenants policies. They realize that they don't have an interest in the building and don't have to worry about insuring it, but when I mention their contents, they will respond "oh...".
Even if a renter agrees to paying the landlord part of the premium to insure the home, most policies I'm aware of will not provide coverage for contents of tenants. There is simply no insurable interest in it for the landlord.
It looks like you have either a mis-informed tenant and/or landlord here. |
Edited by - Type R 1090 on 02/18/2004 21:43:28 |
|
|
|
Jim Lakes
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 23:21:35
|
Type R 1090,
That is very true and I don't understand agents not pushing it more. Not to mention the liability factor. What happens when a tenant leaves a pot on the stove and burns down the building or their unit. The carrier for the landlord goes under his policy and the carrier subrogates against the tenant and ruins them and their credit. I have never met a tenant that takes that factor into account. A real easy way to be in debt for a long time to a carrier. And who's fault is it then? Not the carrier, not the landlord, although more landlords should make a tenant carry a policy, if for nothing else but the liability issue.
Jim Lakes |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 23:23:10
|
Ok, while we wait for JPortillo to advise us of the policy type for the scenario he outlined, let's put on our most creative thinking caps, and thinking outside of the box, see if we can possibly come up with a policy scenario whereby the tenant's contents might be covered by the landlord's policy.
Is there anyone here smart enough to devise a scenario wherein that could happen?
And remember, it's OK to think outside the box! |
Edited by - JimF on 02/18/2004 23:24:28 |
|
|
|
goose
57 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2004 : 00:12:56
|
| A dependent might fit the criteria. |
|
|
|
sbeau4014
USA
53 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2004 : 00:34:55
|
A contract for deed situation where the landlord has put the tenant on the policy by an additional insured endorsement. Would provide cov for building, contnets, liability, etc that the tenant can show an insurable interest. Can be used also in the absence of the contract for deed also, but only for insurable interest in contents, improvements, and liability coverages.
There are also some GL coverages that can give coverage on a 3rd party basis for tenant interest based on the contractural liability language in the policy. This coverage is heavily dependant on the language of the lease agreements, condo by-laws and declarations, contract for deeds, etc.
|
|
|
|
deleted
USA
53 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2004 : 09:23:30
|
| Landlord could also be liable for a tenant's property if safety issues were known and not addressed and resulted in a fire... |
|
|
|
Jim Lakes
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2004 : 10:06:03
|
ciri93,
The landlord would be liable under that circumstance, however, it would be a civil matter and not covered under his policy. The carrier could defned him against a lawsuit but the contents of others would not be covered. They would have to take civil action against the landlord.
What does the policy say about this?
Jim Lakes, RPA |
|
|
|
deleted
USA
53 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2004 : 10:59:03
|
| I don't know Jim I haven't seen the policy...I understand what you're saying though |
|
|
|
Jportillo
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2004 : 09:36:36
|
| I have finally sorted out this whole mess. After chasing this landlord down and calling him for 5 days straight. I had to involve some lawyers and law enforcement friend to help track him down. Turns out that this gentleman did not have any insurance on the home at all, even though he was charging the Renter an extra $75.00 a month for here make believe coverage. I guess the renter has a law suit on her hands. Looks like this job is a pro-bono job for us. Thaks for everyones advice take care and God Bless. |
|
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2004 : 11:49:17
|
So how did the loss get to you?
Did an agent, carrier or TPA send you there?
Was this a "chase" call, on your firm's part?
Guess ,the CADO creed of "Know before you go" can apply even to contractors? N'est pas?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Landlord scamming Renters
Forum Locked
