Landlords forcing tenants to carry renters insurance? (Seattle: 2015, apartment complex)

[ctr88]

I noticed on a new apartment I'm renting they force you to buy renters insurance. Really only to protect their own a** . You have to carry $100,000 liability coverage and the apartment complex is listed as a additionally insured on the policy. They are basically just shifting liability over to the tenants to shoulder the cost. I can't see how it can be legal to do that?

There are many "firsts" I had never seen renting before I moved to the Seattle area. I had never seen apartment landlords pass the cost of water/sewer/garbage to tenants (common on single-family homes everywhere, but not as common in apartments). And I had also never seen non-refundable deposits before moving here. Every other state I have rented there is a deposit and you get it all back if you leave the unit generally in the shape you got it (minus normal wear and tear).

This is a good state to be a landlord (not a great state to be a tenant), you get to pass a lot of costs on to the tenants. And I know landlording very well as I have been a rental property owner in other states for over a decade.

[mishigas73]

Yes, it is legal to have a tenant carry their own liability insurance.

The tenant's policy will become the primary policy in certain situations. Think about it for a moment. What if a guest comes into the apartment and gets injured? Unless there is a showing of negligence on the part of the landlord, why should they be responsible for it?

This happens often in the case of dog bites. Why should the landlord carry the liability for what the tenant's dog does?

Of course, the landlord will hold their own liability insurance.

[noah]

Actually Washington is a state that heavily favors tenants if you go by the state Landlord/tenant laws + local ordinances as well. It is not considered Landlord friendly at all.

[ctr88]

Originally Posted by mishigas73

Yes, it is legal to have a tenant carry their own liability insurance.

The tenant's policy will become the primary policy in certain situations. Think about it for a moment. What if a guest comes into the apartment and gets injured? Unless there is a showing of negligence on the part of the landlord, why should they be responsible for it?

This happens often in the case of dog bites. Why should the landlord carry the liability for what the tenant's dog does?

Of course, the landlord will hold their own liability insurance.

Most tenants don't have dogs, I don't. Why not just require those with dogs to have it? With the example of a friend getting injured on the property, if it isn't due to the landlords negligence, why would they have to be responsible for it if the tenant did or didn't have renters insurance?

[CSD610]

We have rented for the last 10+ years (up until august 2015) and we always had renters insurance, only one rental required it. It covered our items only, not the house itself of anything that belonged to the landlord.

[Ruth4Truth]

Property management offices in many states require tenants to have renters' insurance, OP. This isn't unique to Seattle.

[Medical-Snacks]

Originally Posted by CSD610

We have rented for the last 10+ years (up until august 2015) and we always had renters insurance, all but one rental required it. It covered our items only, not the house itself of anything that belonged to the landlord.

Will it is just a smart move to have renters insurance but that is just me.

[CSD610]

Originally Posted by Medical-Snacks

Will it is just a smart move to have renters insurance but that is just me.

I'm glad you quoted this because I read it again and it was wrong but has now been corrected/edited.

[mishigas73]

Originally Posted by ctr88

Most tenants don't have dogs, I don't. Why not just require those with dogs to have it? With the example of a friend getting injured on the property, if it isn't due to the landlords negligence, why would they have to be responsible for it if the tenant did or didn't have renters insurance?

Because the simple reality of it is that someone is going to pay, and it's usually the person (or entity) with the deepest pockets.

The apartment is, at the end of the day, the landlord's property. They will have their own insurance for it. Let's say a person comes into the apartment, and say, trips over the edge of the carpet, falls and breaks their wrist. I'd like to think that most reasonable people would chalk that up to an accident, have their medical insurance pay for it, and be done with it, but let's say this person decides to sue for damages from this incident. What is one of the first things that a lawyer will ask in the initial consult? "Do you know if there are any insurance policies involved?"

The target will be that person or entity which holds the insurance policy. Why? Because, contrary to popular myth, most insurance companies pay out the vast majority of claims with not too much fuss. And it's far easier to get a settlement check from an insurance company than to have to chase down an individual to enforce a judgment.

Now, let's say that the tenant does not have insurance. Not a problem for a relatively experienced plaintiff's attorney. That carpet was negligently installed, don't you know. And, were it not for the ridiculous placement of the door, it would not have been necessary for the victim to walk in that particular location in the first place. To boot, the floor is swayed due to shoddy construction. Oh wow, we have a claim against the deep pockets now! I can say with relatively good authority that a good many insurance companies will pay claims even more strange than this, without much of a fuss.

Why should the landlord be put on the hook like this? Why should their premiums go up?

[mishigas73]

Oh, and just as a point of fact, $100,000 is the minimum liability for a renters insurance policy in the state of Washington.