USIOMUS

It seems from the subsequent debate that my post was no where near as clear as I had intended. For the benefit of the OP and anyone else who has the same question in the future, let me try to be very clear.

When we rented in PA in 2008, from a large company that owned many rental properties, we were required (in the legal terms of the lease)to hold renters insurance with personal liability insurance AND to name the landlord as an additional insured party on that insurance.

It seemed to me that the OP's potential landlord was asking him/her to do the same and I simply wanted to point out that such a thing is not as unheard of as many other posters had suggested. The insurance company that we used (a large national one) was quite used to such a request and simply inserted the information into the policy. If I remember correctly, they suggested at the time that such requirements were becoming increasingly common, especially with commercial landlords.

Not sure if that makes things clearer or not...it is clear to me!

Bluegrass Lass

A commercial landlord, by most people's definition, is a LL who owns property that is being used for commercial/retail use, not for residential use. That is a key difference. Just because it's common for commercial LLs does not mean that is common for residential LLs - that is where the difference lies. I have never, nor have I ever heard of, a LL requiring to be named on a renter's insurance policy. There are people here who have rented all their lives and have never heard of such a thing. IMHO, you accepted the requirement from your LL without questioning it at all, which is not always the smartest thing to do.

If the only goal of the LL is ensure that a renter does not drop their RI policy, then there is the alternative of naming the LL as a certificate holder (so they get notified in case of policy cancellation).

RoadWarriorFromLP

It is, indeed.

Renters insurance covers contents (your personal property) and liability inside the unit. There's no good reason for a landlord to be an additional insured...unless they'd like to pay the premiums, of course.

One issue here for a tenant arises in the event that you have a conflict with your landlord over liability. If your insurance covers both of you, while the landlord's policy only covers the landlord, then you are effectively stuck without representation unless you go hire your own attorney at your own expense.

It is understandable that a landlord would require a renter to carry a renter's policy. It is even understandable if they required that they be provided notice by the insurer in the event that the renter's policy lapses or is canceled.

But adding them as an additional insured is another matter, and I wouldn't do it. You won't like the results if you find yourself in need of using your coverage.

S Folinsky

I am quite puzzled by your post. You readily admit as to the scope of renter's insurance. I think that scope is quite important. But then you follow that with a conclusion that the landlord would have "no good reason" to be added as an insured.

I disagree -- the scope of the coverage is an excellent reason.

Let me posit a kitchen fire caused at an electrical outlet. The tenant has plugged in her refrigerator, microwave and counter oven into the same outlet using extension cords rather than a fused power strip. However, circuit breaker for that particular wall outlet is defective and fails to trip. Who is responsible for the result of the fire?

RoadWarriorFromLP

That's exactly the point. As a tenant, you'd want to blame the landlord, i.e. subrogate your claim to the renter's insurance, and have them fight it out with the owner's policy, while the landlord is in the opposing camp.

But in this circumstance, the owner is on both policies, while you as the renter are on just one. That creates an inherent conflict; as a renter, you don't want your carrier (and by extension, your own lawyer) representing the opposing party, particularly when you've been the one paying the premiums.

S Folinsky

There is always an inherent conflict in insurance coverage.

scrubbedexpat099

Profound

and correct.

RoadWarriorFromLP

There usually isn't a conflict in interest between insured parties who share a policy.

In this situation, you'd be begging for such a conflict. One insured, the tenant, would want to stick it to the owner's policy, while the other insured would be trying to push it to the renter's policy to which the landlord is also a party. You'd have one insured claiming that the other guy is liable, while the other insured would be demanding to be found at fault within the context of the policy liability.

A renter shouldn't want that kind of drama. The landlord can get his own policy, while the renter can get a different policy. If the landlord wants to be named, then he can pay the premiums.

S Folinsky

Whatever. You are missing the point.

scrubbedexpat099

That would depend, I can think of many cases where there is.

But when shove comes to push, if you want the flat whatever and your insurer will issue a piece of paper that will satisfy the Landlords agent, then what the hell.

The chances of the Landlord knowing what he is asking for, the Landlords Agent understanding what is being provided and the Insurer issuing a piece of paper that is meaningful is about the same as Osma getting US Citizenship.

RoadWarriorFromLP

On this one, you are missing the point by a mile.

There is no reason for the renter to want his likely opponent in a battle to be on the same insurance policy, as that effectively means that the renter will be sharing an attorney with his opponent. (This arrangement is also dumb for the insurer, as it exposes the carrier to a possible bad faith action by the landlord.)

If the landlord is not on the renters policy, then the carrier's duty is solely to the renter. If the landlord is an additional insured, then that duty is owed to both parties. The latter situation is exactly the last thing that the renter paying the premiums should want, for obvious reasons.

RoadWarriorFromLP

If the landlord is demanding it, then I would presume that they understand exactly what the implications are -- if something goes wrong and there is any ambiguity about liability, that same landlord is going to run and file a claim against the renter's policy and demand a pay out from it, even if the renter doesn't agree and wants to pursue the owner's policy.

scrubbedexpat099

Why it is possible, in my experience it is highly unlikely that they understand what they are asking for and why.

Without reviewing the wording it is most likely that such an endorsement would only block subrogation for the tenants property.

celticgrid

Yes you have heard of such a thing. You quoted it!

And while you (and all the others on here you say have also never heard of it) say it doesn't exist, the Washington State Government appears to have heard of it and seems to deem it not inappropriate:

"The landlord may require you to carry specific limits of insurance for specific coverages, such as liability coverage. The landlord also may want you to name him or her as an additional insured for liability coverage on your renters policy."

That quote is on the page of the Washington State - Office of the Insurance Commissioner at http://www.insurance.wa.gov/consumer...nsurance.shtml and note that the page is specifically about home rental insurance, not commercial rentals.

Further, the poster stated that the insurance company were very familiar with the practice.

Perhaps times are changing?

Bluegrass Lass

Well, let me clarify, I have not personally heard of it before this particular thread (I just knew someone was going to be a bit snarky and call me out on that statement).

Further, I don't give a rat's a$$ what a state government says a LL could possibly ask of you. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it and actually give the LL what he/she wants. Personally, I will never name my LL as an additional insured on any RI policy. An RI policy is there to protect me and my family and no one else. The possibility of misuse/abuse by the LL in liability situation is too great, and I will not allow my family to fall victim to it.

If you are okay with taking your chances on having an honest LL who wouldn't take advantage of a situation to get their money and leave you hanging, that's great - I won't ever take that chance and I would recommend against it for anyone asking about it in the future.