S Folinsky

I am still puzzled by your conclusion. In fact, I find the post internally contradictory.

Bluegrass Lass

And would you care to enlighten us as to why you are puzzled, instead of being so cryptic? I, and perhaps a few others, would like to understand why it would ever be a good idea to list a LL as an additional insured on an RI policy.

RoadWarriorFromLP

It's really obvious that you don't quite understand what's being discussed here. But thanks for playing.

S Folinsky

No problem -- I already said it. There appears to be a dispute over the term "conflict." Inherently, there is a "conflict" between the insurance carrier's financial interest against paying claims and its contractual obligation to do so. On top of that, the carrier is often the gorilla in the room and they set the rules. A lot of insurance law is premised on dealing with the conflict.

I think the existence of the "conflict" between the policy holder and its own insureds is obvious. However, when I brought this up, one of responses was that I was creating a "conflict" where none existed. [To be fair, there was also another post that agreed].

Every particular fact situation is different -- terms of the contract may vary, local practice may vary. In addition, insurance is often a matter of STATE law.

I have no idea whether it is advisable for the OP to add the landlord to the coverage or not. There are too many variables. There are possible benefits and possible risks.

However, I do see that it mayvery well be beneficial to the tenant's financial interests to have the landlord allied with the tenant when it comes time to deal with the claims. I consider protection of one's own financial interest to be a "good reason" to take a course of action.

RoadWarriorFromLP

In situations when there is any question over owner vs. tenant liability, the landlord and tenant are natural adversaries. There isn't much reason for a renter to name a natural adversary as an additional insured, while the renter doesn't have it reciprocated vis-a-vis the owner's policy.

You obviously misunderstood the response.

The point was that during situations when there is a question as to which insurance policy applies, the dispute between landlord and tenant is a given. You clearly miss this.

Naming the landlord as an additional insured imposes a duty on the renter's policy, and by extension, the renter that doesn't otherwise exist. The last thing that the renter should want is to be obliged to have his own insurer represent the opposing party.

scrubbedexpat099

Think of it this way, do you add your clients as joint insured on your PI policy?

S Folinsky

Sigh. Be nice.

We agree on the statements in bold.

I read your response as also containing unsupported conclusions and an insult or two. These are indicated by underline.

I have noted my observations and perceptions. I have a belief that conclusions should be supported by facts and analysis. I have no idea what is advisable for OP. His question is a good one and is entitled to good cogent discussion of the factors. However, I believe that unsupported conclusions are of no help.

RoadWarriorFromLP

You probably should have thought of that before you posted #54.

S Folinsky

Mea culpa. I will admit that I internally had a bad reaction of the rudeness in post #53. I tried to tone it down, but I guess I should have toned it down more.

S Folinsky

I had lunch the other day with a lawyer friend who practices real estate law. He actually was laughing at the consensus in this thread that you should act against your own best interests.

In fact, he always recommends that, even if the landlord does not request it, the landlord should be named on the tenant's insurance.

I am still puzzled why the people on this thread are adamantly opposed to what seems to be a quite sensible idea.

scrubbedexpat099

Now somebody who practices Insurance Law, such observations would be interesting.

Just Jenney

Let me state first that I haven't read this entire thread yet. However, I live in Virginia and my rental lease requires that 1) I have renter's insurance and 3) that the apartment management company (landlord) be listed as an additional insured. This is so they'll be notified if the policy is ever cancelled.

I've lived here for 9.5 years but this requirement wasn't introduced to my lease until 3-4 years ago. Before that, tenants were only strongly encouraged to obtain renters insurance.

~ Jenney

frrussre

He is a Real Estate Lawyer, he probably thinks, tenant should hand back a fully painted, brand new unit? He probably thinks, there is no acceptable "Wear & Tear"? He probably thinks, tenant should pay, for Landlords building insurance as in "Net Lease" commercial. He thinks, tenant, should pay to maintain, the appliances.
Bit, like asking the the poacher to look after the hen house, he is a Real Estate Lawyer, priority #1, look after, Landlord.

Repeat myself, never ever ever, heard of Renters Policy, naming Landlord. Merely the sight of the said, policy.

Reg. Frank R.

S Folinsky

Interesting. Personally, I think that "reasonable wear & tear" would be to the benefit of the tenant. You are free to disagree with that.

I see nothing wrong with a tenant acting in his own interest even if it also benefits the landlord.

frrussre

Think you are miss reading my comments.
Reasonable wear & tear or "Fair Wear & tear, is virtually always the norm, judges certainly agree, but a few unscrupulous Landlords, expect their property back, in perfect condition, UNUSED. They then use it as an excuse, to keep the security deposits.

A 36 month lease car with 36k, mile on the clock, is no longer going to be in perfect condition, there will be wear (Not rips tears & wilful damage), wear, that was priced into the monthly rent.

Same as rental home, carpet, stove, fridge, walls, cannot be perfect after being lived in.

Reg. Frank R.