Oregon4now

It has been my experience the addition of the landlords name on an RI policy has been exclusively whenever I rented a Townhome/ Condo ( 5 x's ),it never came up when we lived in an APT. I suppose because each unit is individually owned.

Landlords Insurance can be referred to a wide range of coverage from Landlords Buildings to Landlords Contents and Property Owners Liability. Since the risks associated with let properties differ from the risks associated with owner occupied properties, it is necessary to consult with an insurer who specializes in this type of Property Insurance.

The landlord's or condo association's insurance protects only the building but not your things in it. It's Renters Insurance that will protect your belongings in case of some insured disaster. Tenants have no obligation to insure the premises; however they should consider purchasing Renter's Insurance since the Landlord's Insurance does not cover the tenant's personal property and liability for personal injuries of third parties occurring on the premises.

In case your apartment becomes uninhabitable due to some reason covered under your policy, your insurance will cover your "additional living expenses." Your insurance company will pay you until your home has been repaired or rebuilt, or until you relocate.

Renters insurance provides coverage for a tenant's personal things as well as covering the tenant (also known as liability coverage) just in case the renter is found responsible for property damage due to negligent behavior. It also covers a guest of the tenant getting hurt should that guest happen to get injured in the tenant's apartment. And almost every policy will cover medical payments should the guest require medical attention due to an event that occurred in the tenant's apartment. I would think this is the part for the Additional liability coverage where the Property Owners name addition on the policy comes to play, I have a 150 Gal fish Aquarium that I have moved with me no less then 5 x's and I always have had to add the property owner as an additional loss payee, just in case..

These are the facts for all of you Desktop Lawyers attempting to use fancy Terminology in trying to dispute my simple explanation I originally posted, but not applying it in the proper context, some are so eager to argue for no other reason then arguing.
I suggest you read up on them before declaring RI only to be for a Property owners advantage, because ..well... That's just plain stupid not to cover your a$$ these days.

Perhaps it is just me and a few others that this as SO EASY to comprehend..

Giantaxe

Nobody is claiming that... one more time, the discussion is about naming the landlord on a renter's insurance policy, not on whether renter's insurance has benefits. I haven't seen any disagreement on this thread of the benefit of renter's insurance itself.

Bluegrass Lass

As has already been stated in response to your posts, NO ONE is debating that RI is necessary and all renter's should carry it. You keep making posts stating the reasons why people should carry RI, and we are all well aware of the benefits of an RI policy.

It is adding the LL as an additional insured that is being debated. What is so hard for you to comprehend about that?? Do you not get that significant detail?? Almost everyone here is saying that it is not normal to have the LL as an additional insured on an RI policy, and that there are reasons why one should not.

Oregon4now

WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ?
Renters insurance provides coverage for a tenant's personal things as well as covering the tenant (also known as liability coverage) just in case the renter is found responsible for property damage due to negligent behavior. .. This is the coverage that the PROPERTY OWNERS require in order to live on their Property, it is by having this ADDITIONAL coverage that REQUIRE the Property Owners name to be LISTED... PERIOD, END OF STORY.
It also covers a guest of the tenant getting hurt should that guest happen to get injured in the tenant's apartment. And almost every policy will cover medical payments should the guest require medical attention due to an event that occurred in the tenant's apartment. You are aware that there are MANY RI policies available with different types of coverage... THE property Owners want this one, It makes sense for both parties...PERIOD ! If you do not like it, then do not rent from them, but this is a new day & age People, Things change for a reason, there is no ulterior motive or something sinister going on.
Seriously ask an Insurance Lawyer, I did, No point on beating a dead horse..
.... eISH !!!

Giantaxe

Correct; many landlords require this.

Liability coverage on renter's insurance does not require the landlord to be added to the policy.

Sally Redux

When we rented when we first came we were not required to have insurance. If we had damaged something of the landlord's then we would have had to pay for it. If our own stuff got damaged/stolen then that's our business.

Englishtart

I think it's silly to generalise on this subject, like so many other things, it isn't 'one size fits all'. I have rented places that have written in the contract, that we have RI and provide proof, been in others (this one here) that there is no proof required and the owner has no interest in our 'personal' property, he isn't liable for anything that happens to it, so why should he care?

We have RI obviously, but we didn't have to have any additions added to cover us for visitors sueing us for injuries while on the property, or for coverage for us if we are 'homeless' for any reason because we get kicked out or we have a fire etc.

Oregon4now

Liability coverage on renter's insurance does not require the landlord to be added to the policy.[/QUOTE]

It depends on the RI policy you have, there are many different policies for different situations. Mine was required to have all the Property owners info on it, Of course it was written into the lease I was bringing in an 150 Gal. Aquarium and that I had to maintain at all times, RI and the additional Coverage, covering the potential water damage I could cause through my own negligence, The LL home ins may not cover the entire cost because it was tenant negligence and not Property owner negligence nor structural. Lets say I broke my Aquarium and it flooded my downstairs, ruining the ceiling, walls, Not a plumbers pipe broke mind you but my own personal Aquarium, homeowners will take care of it sure, but then the owner has to come up with the deductable $ 2,500 in order for his ins company to fix the damage, by having the ADDITIONAL Flood insurance with my normal RI, The Property Owner does not pay out of pocket because he is an ADDITIONAL Loss Payee on your RI that he signed. This does not mean that they will mix the 2 cases up, I will get compensated for whatever was ruined of my personal belongings, the people living below will also have their damages taken care of, just in case they did not have RI... They cannot sue the landlord because as a tenant I signed the lease that said I had to have additional Ins. This ADDITIONAL coverage also takes care of them, and as a Bonus The Landlord cannot sue me for the deductible, I have that already covered with the Flood ADDITION to my regular RI policy.... Does this make any sense to anybody out there
I Totally agree with Englishtart, it is silly to generalize on this subject any further... BTW, I pay $ 36.00 a Month for the Total package.. flood & Earthquakes
Enjoy your day

scrubbedexpat099

You do not seem to understand the basic principals of Insurance.

Property Insurance
Any claim would have to be settled to all the named insured's. A cheque would need to be made payable to the renter and landlord unless the landlord agreed otherwise.

Liability Insurance
By its very name the policy covers LEGAL liability. In this case if a Tenant was legally liable for damage to the Landlords property and the landlord had a case, the policy would protect the tenant against a claim by the landlord.

I see no point in the landlord being an insured party on a liability policy, the policy only covers the tenants liability not that of the property owner. I can see the point of the landlords interest being noted so that he would have notice if the tenant did not renew etc and cover was required to be in place as part of the letting contract.

Oregon4now

I am tired of beating a dead horse.... It seems you are the one unable to understand, It is clear as daylight in my eyes, that's why I pay $36.00 instead of $ 12.00 a month... I pay for *ADDITIONAL Coverage that meets my Property owners requirements for allowing me to set up my Aquarium * in the unit I am renting.
I am going out for a jog, enjoy your day...

Bob

You've completely missed the point of what everyone has been saying.

Bob

But you still haven't explained why you would add your landlord on to your very own, personal insurance cover as a policy holder and pay the premiums for the both of you.

Oregon4now

I never said to add them as 'A policy holder ' I explained in my above post why I have him listed as an ' Additional loss payee '. It his own Choice as a LL to demand such coverage from renters, You as a renter have the choice to not accept those terms and find another place, plain and simple really.
Nobody said that this was the law, because it is not, but this request from LL is becoming more commonplace then you may think. You are only paying the premiums for your own level of coverage as a RENTER as required by the LL. BTW, did you know that RI does not cover earthquake or flood damage, these coverages must be purchased separately at an additional price, price also changes if you are insuring your personal items for ' Replacement Value ' or 'Actual value'....
Just like any other type of homeowners insurance policy, your renters insurance premium depends on a number of factors: where you live, your deductible, your insurance company and whether you need any additional coverage... key word 'ADDITIONAL COVERAGE ' may include and require the LL
to be on your RI, I used myself and circumstances as an example of WHY I had to have the LL as an additional loss payee on My RI, To cover the possible additional expenses not covered by HIS own homeowners Ins and it protects ME from getting sued over the LL Deductables in the event of MY own negligence.. Is that clear enough without provoking an argument ?
Not really a big a deal as some of you are making out..

scrubbedexpat099

An example of a Loss Payee.

A property developer borrows a lot of money to build a building. The lender requires to be noted as the loss payee. In the event of a loss the lender gets the cheque.

The same property developer obviously has liability coverage as well. The loss payee clause does not apply as any settlement is made by the insurer to the claimant, not the insured or the loss payee.

I should charge for this....

Bob

That's what this thread is about. Not the benefits of RI, which most people have already said is worth having.

And no, it's not all that common to have them listed on your own policy, more and more people might be asking for it, but it really isn't common for residential renters.

And why bring in additional coverage like Flood/Earthquake? Not even remotely relevant.