Burglary - Is Landlord Liable? CA (tenants, housing, cheap)

[HotFudge]

I don't think the landlord is liable. Like other people have said, renter's insurance (extremely cheap and well worth it)

[NDA]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

It is unrealistic to expect the owner's insurance to step in unless you file suit.

The owner was not able to protect his own home and he lives on site.

Asking the owner to put in a false claim is Insurance Fraud and people to to jail for that in this state.

Burglar Bars... speaking of Insurance, I personally know Property Owners who have been denied coverage or cancelled on units with Bars...

The Fire Code generally super-cedes all other building codes including the American with Disabilities Act. The Fire Code does not endorse bars on Bedroom Windows.

The Best way to Handle your loss is through your own insurance company. Your Insurance company will subjugate against the Owner if it believes the owner culpable.

I am sorry for your loss.

It is not fraud to make a claim for a burglary that occurs on property. Perhaps you missed the part about her unit being on same property as the landlord? It would be fraud if the burglary did not occur or if it occured at some other location and a claim was made. There are ocassions where you can make claims against your insurance for things occuring insured property off the property. A burglary did occur. Home owners insurance covers the entire property. Not pieces of the property. She is not excluded because she is a tenant. If his child lived back there he would make a claim and people wouldn't be confused.

If a visitors car is broken into while parked on someone's property that visitor can make a claim through that homeowner's policy. If a vistor falls while on the property they can make a claim against policy. If your neighbor is digging holes in the backyard and causing the insured property to sink, the insurance company will step in.

But I won't be arguing with people who don't know what they are speaking of. Hopefully the op will pursue the matter and tell the landlord to make a claim for the loss. Don't give up just because you encounter a little push back.

A little snippet of info for OP from the California Supreme Court:

Ann M. announced the rule we follow today, namely that “California law
requires landowners to maintain land in their possession and control in a
reasonably safe condition. [Citations.] In the case of a landlord, this general duty
of maintenance, which is owed to tenants and patrons, has been held to include the
duty to take reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal
acts of third parties that are likely to occur in the absence of such precautionary
measures. [Citations.]” (Ann M., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 674.) We also observed
that “a duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of a third party
will be imposed only where such conduct can be reasonably anticipated.” (Id. at
p. 676.)

[greggd]

Originally Posted by NDA

It is not fraud to make a claim for a burglary that occurs on property. Perhaps you missed the part about her unit being on same property as the landlord? It would be fraud if the burglary did not occur or if it occured at some other location and a claim was made. There are ocassions where you can make claims against your insurance for things occuring insured property off the property. A burglary did occur. Home owners insurance covers the entire property. Not pieces of the property. She is not excluded because she is a tenant. If his child lived back there he would make a claim and people wouldn't be confused.

If a visitors car is broken into while parked on someone's property that visitor can make a claim through that homeowner's policy. If a vistor falls while on the property they can make a claim against policy. If your neighbor is digging holes in the backyard and causing the insured property to sink, the insurance company will step in.

But I won't be arguing with people who don't know what they are speaking of. Hopefully the op will pursue the matter and tell the landlord to make a claim for the loss. Don't give up just because you encounter a little push back.

A little snippet of info for OP from the California Supreme Court:

Ann M. announced the rule we follow today, namely that “California law
requires landowners to maintain land in their possession and control in a
reasonably safe condition. [Citations.] In the case of a landlord, this general duty
of maintenance, which is owed to tenants and patrons, has been held to include the
duty to take reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal
acts of third parties that are likely to occur in the absence of such precautionary
measures. [Citations.]” (Ann M., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 674.) We also observed
that “a duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of a third party
will be imposed only where such conduct can be reasonably anticipated.” (Id. at
p. 676.)

The owner's homeowner policy is generally on a form HO3 which covers the structure he lives in for basic perils including theft of owned property.

He would have a seperate dwelling fire & liability policy form DP3 to cover the tenant occupied dwelling. (assuming its a separate structure on the same lot) The DP3 form would not provide theft coverage for non-owned property. The renter's property is considered non-owned property. This is why renters insurance includes personal property coverage.

You are confusing non-owned property with property temporarily in the control and possession of the homeowner. The renters property is not in the possession of the landlord.

The owner was also in the process of adding additional security and the 2nd occurrence happened within a week. hardly negligent since he was in the process of adding additional security, and notified the tenant beforehand as well.

The only way the tenant could collect is by sobbing ignorance & poverty. If he gets lucky and the landlord acts cocky in court, a sympathetic judge may throw the renter a bone.

[GreenMachine]

Originally Posted by vbperez

Hello,

A week ago my landlord's house was burglarized (he lives right behind my house). He told us he was going to put bars on our windows so we could feel more secure, but unfortunately that hasn't happened.

He was scheduled to have the windows on our house measured on Monday (yesterday) but just our luck our house was burglarized yesterday. We lost over $8,000 worth of cash and merchandise.

Is the landlord liable since he knew the area was no longer safe and he didn't act quick enough to protect the premises from burglars.

The windows were all locked but the burglar or burglars were able to break one of the windows, unlock it, and come in.

Please advise.

Thanks,

Veronica

No, not liable. Get renter's insurance.

greenie

[think.reciprocity]

Originally Posted by greggd

I think its absolutely necessary. I would never rent or live in an apt without it. If a tenant overflows a sink on a 2nd floor and damages the ceilings, flooring etc guess whos liable? Renter. Renter insurance covers more than furniture and belonings. It includes $ for loss of use of the unit, and most importantly liability in the event the renter damages the property in some way.

If a renter starts a candle fire or fire from a cigarette, they are liable and insurance co's are starting to hold renters responsible to make them pay. Generally, they have nothing to their name so is futile, but if they do receive an inheritance or come into money down the line, guess who gets first dibs via that court order filed after the fire many years ago..

You misunderstood what I was saying. I was commenting on someone else saying that a landlord should require it of a tenant & have that requirement in the lease - to protect the landlord from tenant action.

I have always carried renters' insurance & wouldn't consider ever going without it. As I thought I clearly stated in my comments. I've unfortunately had opportunity to use it.

[greggd]

Originally Posted by think.reciprocity

You misunderstood what I was saying. I was commenting on someone else saying that a landlord should require it of a tenant & have that requirement in the lease - to protect the landlord from tenant action.

I have always carried renters' insurance & wouldn't consider ever going without it. As I thought I clearly stated in my comments. I've unfortunately had opportunity to use it.

Ok thanks for the clarification.

[Ultrarunner]

Thanks Greggd for clarifying Home Owner's Insurance.

In my example, the tenant that accidentally caused the Grease Fire couldn't believed he would NOT be held responsible SINCE THE OWNER HAD INSURANCE.

It was only after the tenant consulted with an attorney and learned that the owner was indeed covered as a "Named Insured" and that the owner's coverage did not apply to him as a renter and would, in fact, be going after him to recover the cost of the claim.

Determining the nuances of Insurance can be quite complex and even the experts can disagree.... I guess this is why the court calenders have many cases involving insurance cases?

I have not seen a Rental Agreement in the last 10 years that doesn't advise the tenant to obtain insurance.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by NDA

It is not fraud to make a claim for a burglary that occurs on property. Perhaps you missed the part about her unit being on same property as the landlord? It would be fraud if the burglary did not occur or if it occured at some other location and a claim was made. There are ocassions where you can make claims against your insurance for things occuring insured property off the property. A burglary did occur. Home owners insurance covers the entire property. Not pieces of the property. She is not excluded because she is a tenant. If his child lived back there he would make a claim and people wouldn't be confused.

The owner's policy only covers the structure of the building. Contents are the responsibility of the tenant, unless there is some other reason the owner can be found liable for the loss. That's why I bought renter's insurance, and it paid for itself 10 times over when the complex had a fire.

[Lumerian Feast]

Originally Posted by NDA

It is not fraud to make a claim for a burglary that occurs on property. Perhaps you missed the part about her unit being on same property as the landlord? It would be fraud if the burglary did not occur or if it occured at some other location and a claim was made. There are ocassions where you can make claims against your insurance for things occuring insured property off the property. A burglary did occur. Home owners insurance covers the entire property. Not pieces of the property. She is not excluded because she is a tenant. If his child lived back there he would make a claim and people wouldn't be confused.

This is SIMPLY NOT TRUE! Landlords are not liable for loss of a tenant's personal property through fire, theft or other causes unless the tenant can prove gross negligence, which is obviously not the case here. I've been a landlord, and I know for a fact that my insurance DOES NOT cover my tenants' property.

Furthermore, I'll bet that the lease has this boilerplate paragraph in it, since it's in most CA leases and is based on California law (and every other state's law):

"Tenants' Financial Responsibility and Renters' Insurance. Tenants agree to accept financial responsibility for any loss or damage to personal property belonging to Tenants and their guests and invitees caused by theft, fire or any other cause. Landlord assumes no liability for any such loss. Landlord recommends that Tenants obtain a renter's insurance policy from a recognized insurance firm to cover Tenants' liability, personal property damage and damage to the premises."

But even if that paragraph's not there, the insurance doesn't cover the property.

Originally Posted by NDA

"If a visitors car is broken into while parked on someone's property that visitor can make a claim through that homeowner's policy. If a vistor falls while on the property they can make a claim against policy. If your neighbor is digging holes in the backyard and causing the insured property to sink, the insurance company will step in."

These are all non-analogous situations. First, none of them deal with landlord/tenants, a relationship has its own set of laws and rights. Secondly, someone falling on a hole or digging and causing the house to slide are examples of someone bearing responsibility for their own negligence or actions. The landlord's not the one who stole the tenant's property, so he has no liability. And if the apartment had locking doors and the landlord was in the process of putting on bars (which aren't required by law), then he's clearly not grossly negligent.

Originally Posted by NDA

But I won't be arguing with people who don't know what they are speaking of.

This condescending comment is all the more ridiculous because you are clearly the one who has no idea what he's talking about.

Originally Posted by NDA

Ann M. announced the rule we follow today, namely that “California law
requires landowners to maintain land in their possession and control in a
reasonably safe condition. [Citations.] In the case of a landlord, this general duty
of maintenance, which is owed to tenants and patrons, has been held to include the
duty to take reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal
acts of third parties that are likely to occur in the absence of such precautionary
measures. [Citations.]” (Ann M., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 674.) We also observed
that “a duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of a third party
will be imposed only where such conduct can be reasonably anticipated.” (Id. at
p. 676.)

And what this means is: if the renter can show gross negligence, the landlord (NOT the landlord's insurance, which doesn't cover negligence) can be held liable.

[Logic316us]

Absolutely not!
Tenants are responsible for their own security, and it specifically says so in most rental agreements. If you had a defective lock somewhere or if the landlord came inside to do a repair and left your door open after he left thus giving the intruder easy access, then you might have a case. But the fact that the landlord agreed to do you a favor (which he was not legally obligated to perform) and did not come through with it in time, does not make him in any way negligent or responsible for the break-in. The only person you could sue here is the burglar himself, if you can find him. Just because a tragedy happens in your life, doesn't give you the right to go after the nearest person simply because his pockets happen to be deeper than yours.