Right, it’s just about liability. So should a landlord chose to skip property insurance (fire, vandelism, etc) for whatever reason, being an additional insured will provide them with the liability coverage for that property without having to take out their own policy.
Only to the extent that the tenant’s actions cause the damages though. If it’s the landlord’s negligence, being named an additional insured doesn’t help them.
Or was it unfixed? Surface dried out, but who knows what’s underneath? If mold starts growing you’re going to have a problem.
Concrete under carpet. Tenant runs a church from the property so he should be covered by more than just insurance.
1 Like
This seems to say otherwise: http://realestate.deangraziosi.com/real-estate-forums/rental-and-cashflow-property-management-strategies/152543/named-insured-vs-additional-insured-vs-additional-
“However, if there was litigation involving the property or its use and the “Additional Insured” was named in the suit for any reason, the policy provides liability protection for legal and defense costs for the “Additional Insured” and the insurance company issuing the coverage would have a ‘duty to defend’ any and all “Additional Insured parties” listed in the policy.”
2 Likes
I don’t think their duty to defend stops when their expenses exceed liability coverage. The funding for defense probably comes from a different purse. I’d guess that if they estimated in advance that the cost to defend would be so high, they might be more inclined to settle.
The policy limits are to cover your liability, not the cost of determining that liability. Legal costs are provided outside the policy limit.
I am not a landlord but I’ve done due diligence with future intention to be a landlord. You’re posts are astonishing to me that as a landlord you #1 rely on your condo insurance policy and don’t also self insure your own interests (condo associations are sketchy at best) and more to #2 you didn’t follow up after the flooding incident to check or verify any damages! You assume just because they are still living there that they will fix any water damage to the condo themselves?
That’s a recipe for disaster and may have a big after-move-out cost, especially if they damage the place where upon early investigation you could have repaired or mitigated those damages earlier on.
This isn’t even a case where you weren’t aware of damages done, but there was a liability claim filed. Please, check the property out or at least hire a contractor or agent to do a walk through…
3 Likes
There’s something to be said about having a “F*** it, I’m getting paid and don’t give a s**t…” mentality as a landlord.
I wouldn’t do it, but a couple landlords I know/know of have been doing it for decades and seem to make out.
And when their property(ies) do get to the point where they need serious rehab, that’s when they sell them.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
It’s basically 4 concrete block walls and a concrete floor. How much damage could have been done to that? This happened over a year ago. Tenant pays on time so it must have been repaired good enough that he still uses it.
It looks like it depends on the language of the contract and possibly the state. Just found this. The standard language in 2004 for commercial liability additional insureds says that the insurance doesn’t cover the AI’s sole negligence, but would cover contributory negligence, as opposed to just vicarious liability. Before that it covered the AI’s sole negligence. It’s possible the rental insurance standard language is different.
1 Like
Yeah, it makes more sense after you explained it. Even if there’s a fire, there’s not much to burn. Not a typical residential, lots of wood/paper/combustible or porous building materials.