Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand the tenant is not covered under my policy. It's a good idea for them to have insurance but my issue is that the insurer says they will not cover my rental unless the tenant buys insurance. They asked me to send a copy of my tenants insurance policy. This is after the policy went in to place on the 1st. That's the contingency I have a issue with and wondered if that's standard. There is no requirement written in lease for them to carry insurance, no requirement by our co-op for a renter to have insurance, and it's not across the board common for renters to have it in the first place, so there is no way for me to force them to do it (or do it within the 10 days that my insurer wants).
This is my confusion: I know now the vast majority of renters in NYC don't carry rental insurance so how is it that this company says it's a requirement to cover the place? Or is it just this company (Travelers)?
I have it for both myself and my wife through ALL State and pay about 30 bucks a month. My landlord never required it though, but I took it out of precaution.
I understand the tenant is not covered under my policy. It's a good idea for them to have insurance but my issue is that the insurer says they will not cover my rental unless the tenant buys insurance. They asked me to send a copy of my tenants insurance policy. This is after the policy went in to place on the 1st. That's the contingency I have a issue with and wondered if that's standard. There is no requirement written in lease for them to carry insurance, no requirement by our co-op for a renter to have insurance, and it's not across the board common for renters to have it in the first place, so there is no way for me to force them to do it (or do it within the 10 days that my insurer wants).
This is my confusion: I know now the vast majority of renters in NYC don't carry rental insurance so how is it that this company says it's a requirement to cover the place? Or is it just this company (Travelers)?
here is why they will drop you.. homeowners insurance or ho3 insurance is really only for owner occupied . it is not for rentals.
the reason is, h03 homeowners covers the insured and all HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. technically anyone living in your house or property is a household member after 72 hours.
that means they have to be insured and covered for liability technically on your policy as there is no distinction between tenant and household member with h03.
tenants do not exist under h03, because it is supposed to be for owner occupied only.
they will cover your rental property if you add it but they will try to not cover liabilty for your tenant under most conditions.
that means if your tenant does something that causes injury or damage you get sued if they have no insurance as the owner.
that brings them into the case and the danger is the judge may rule they have to pay under the fact that he is considering them a household member under the h03 rules.
they want no part of this and want your tenant to have their own coverage so you do not get sucked in.
landlord insurance is very different , it breaks that link between tenant and household member, that is what you really need to insure a rental not your ho3 homeowners.
do you know under h03 if the tenant steals your appliances or vandalizes the apartment you have no coverage for that. it is considered an insurance job since under h03 your tenant can be considered a household member and hense an insured.
i found that out the hard way when a tenant stole stuff and we found out it is a civil matter since the policy says he was a household member and an insured like i was. .
Last edited by mathjak107; 02-06-2014 at 05:24 PM..
here is why they will drop you.. homeowners insurance or ho3 insurance is really only for owner occupied . it is not for rentals.
the reason is, h03 homeowners covers the insured and all HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. technically anyone living in your house or property is a household member after 72 hours.
that means they have to be insured and covered for liability technically on your policy as there is no distinction between tenant and household member with h03.
tenants do not exist under h03, because it is supposed to be for owner occupied only.
they will cover your rental property if you add it but they will try to not cover liabilty for your tenant under most conditions.
that means if your tenant does something that causes injury or damage you get sued if they have no insurance as the owner.
that brings them into the case and the danger is the judge may rule they have to pay under the fact that he is considering them a household member under the h03 rules.
they want no part of this and want your tenant to have their own coverage so you do not get sucked in.
landlord insurance is very different , it breaks that link between tenant and household member, that is what you really need to insure a rental not your ho3 homeowners.
Thank you! This makes perfect sense. So they aren't offering the ideal coverage for the situation. I called them up and just asked for "insurance to cover a rental" and didn't get a beak down for H03 vs landlord. Landlord insurance is what I want. Is there a reason why they didn't offer the landlord insurance?
many companies do not offer it. they want nothing not owner occupied. because we owned alot of co-op apartments as well as commercial property we just had commercial business insurance for it all.
I always had renters insurance when I was a renter.Don't remember anyone forcing me to do it then,I just did it because it seemed like the right thing to do.Then,when I bought a co op,the co-op and the bank told me I had to get it.
I had owners insurance on it until a tenant moved in a few days ago. I called the insurance company to adjust the coverage before they moved in. They did but miscommunicated (rather did not make it clear) that my tenants must carry insurance too. If not, they say they will drop me from their policy.
The point isn't how cheap rental insurance is, the point is that they are forcing coverage of my tenants (not through them, they can use anyone) in order to also cover me. I'm asking if this is normal policy across the board. If it is, then it means the majority of renters in NYC would have rental insurance.
I would say it is normal--- if your tenant screws up they don't want you to put a claim in... in insurance it is known as the theory of deep and multiple pockets. I think you will find most have it or should. Think it through from the company's perspective
I would say it is normal--- if your tenant screws up they don't want you to put a claim in... in insurance it is known as the theory of deep and multiple pockets. I think you will find most have it or should. Think it through from the company's perspective
No it's not normal because if it was, every renter in NYC would have insurance. As mathjak pointed out, I need landlord insurance. My guess is that's what most landlords have. What my insurer is offering is something else.
I think my tenant should get insurance but it should not be a requirement for them to occupy the apartment. Especially since that was not made a requirement before they signed the lease. Had I known before, I would have had that written in the lease. I'll ask if they plan to get it and if not, I'll just make sure my coverage is changed to landlord status. That might mean going with another company but I'm fine with that.
No it's not normal because if it was, every renter in NYC would have insurance. As mathjak pointed out, I need landlord insurance. My guess is that's what most landlords have. What my insurer is offering is something else.
I think my tenant should get insurance but it should not be a requirement for them to occupy the apartment. Especially since that was not made a requirement before they signed the lease. Had I known before, I would have had that written in the lease. I'll ask if they plan to get it and if not, I'll just make sure my coverage is changed to landlord status. That might mean going with another company but I'm fine with that.
I will say it again--The insurance company wants to be off the hook if your tenant causes damage in the place--- they do not want to have you put in a claim. Think about it if they did not have insurance and caused damage would you file a claim under your coop insurance. The existence of another policy for the tenants makes that the first place to go with a claim and for the first time in my life I am renting and I can tell you it is written into my lease and I had no problem with it
Both of the management companies I've rented through have had strongly worded clauses in the lease suggesting that tenants hold policies. I always have simply because of valuable camera equipment, etc., but I figure for $28 per month, why not?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
