8 ms·
A requirement to obtain renter’s insurance is not an example of the type of fees this legislation is targeting.
by dml2135 2mo ago
A requirement to obtain renter’s insurance is not an example of the type of fees this legislation is targeting.
- SoftTalker 2mo agoIt should also be illegal. If I want to risk loss of my personal property that should be my decision to make.
- erentz 2mo agoIt’s not your property they care about. They usually want this because it includes liability insurance if you damage their property or someone else’s, or your negligence causes harm to someone.
- evolve2k 2mo agoIn Australia we have very strong consumer protection law, here it’s expected (by the bank usually) the landlord has at least a minimum “landlord insurance” that covers all that stuff. For anything not covered, where a tenant does damage thats what the bond is for. Renter insurance should be optional. Actually I’m surprised that landlord insurance is not already occurring, imagine a building with 100 apartments, I’m sure the bank would ask the landlord to have a single cover over 100’s of little crappy policies. If renter insurance is required by regulations, this is likley another good target for policy change. Americans really do get screwed in so many ways.
- SoftTalker 2mo agoSame here. This has only been a thing recently when landlords figured out they could make money selling the insurance. When I was a renter, insurance was never required from me.
- phil21 2mo agoIt was required in all my boilerplate leases going back to the late 90s. Just rarely if ever enforced or even asked about. You’d just end up with some giant uncollectable judgement against you if you ended up burning down the apartment complex via negligence. Landlords insurance company would potentially come after you, but probably not since it would not be worth their time for most tenants.
- SoftTalker 2mo agoThe liability limits on most renters insurance policies are low $100Ks, because most renters don't have many assets they need to protect. This would be pretty inconsequential in the scenario of "burning down the apartment complex." Landlords/owners have their own fire and liability insurance (ultimately paid for by the tenants as part of their rent); it's unnecessary to demand that the tenants provide their own. Renter's insurance is for the tenant's protection, not the landlord's. My leases always point out that the landlord's insurance does not cover the tenant's personal property or liability, and recommend renter's insurance. But it's not required.
- phil21 2mo ago> My leases always point out that the landlord's insurance does not cover the tenant's personal property or liability, and recommend renter's insurance. But it's not required. I generally agree, obviously for a "burn the place down" incident the renter's policy is going to be rather inconsequential, and likely not even actionable. But for more "medium" stuff like "flood the unit below me because I left the bath on and left for work" where the liability is in the low $10k's, that's where I see landlords (and their covering policies) wanting the renter's insurance to kick in and cover. I personally find it a bit slimey - if you're a landlord this is just part of the risk of being a landlord. If you don't have the capital to cover such incidents, then you should simply not be a landlord. Sorry. Trying to squeeze an extra few dollars per month out of tenants is ridiculous, but seems to be the way everything is going when you get hyper-financialization and PE type firms buying multiple buildings.
- 2mo ago
- erentz 2mo ago> Americans really do get screwed in so many ways. Absolutely. I assumed the parent was talking about the US because that's the only place in the world I've encountered this.
- dzhiurgis 2mo agoIf everyone is required to have an insurance - why not bury it in property tax/rates instead? In NZ we are not required to have third party medical cover because everyone is already covered by yearly car registration fee.
- zhivota 2mo agoThe answer to every question like this in the US is "because the wrong people would benefit". In the past (and still today but less so), that literally meant black people. Now it mostly means poor people of all races. It's been shown over and over that it's practically an American cultural value to accept lower benefits to yourself in trade for denying benefits to what you see as an undeserving group.
- inigyou 2mo agoWhat about people without cars?
- echoangle 2mo agoBut then it should be included in the quoted price, right? It’s mandatory after all.
- ThunderSizzle 2mo agoI've never purchased rental insurance from a landlord or their recommended place. I used my insurance company I already had.
- astura 2mo agoMost people will purchase through their car insurance company for a bundled rate.
- dml2135 2mo agoShould car insurance be included in the price of a car? You have the freedom to purchase insurance from whoever.
- echoangle 2mo agoThat’s a legal requirement though. If I rent a car and the rental company requires me to also insure it or they won’t give me the keys, surely that should be included, even if the insurance money isn’t going to the rental company.
- dml2135 2mo agoIf you are leasing a car they would certainly also require you to obtain insurance as part of your lease agreement. Same deal with an apartment.
- echoangle 2mo agoWhy would they? Would they not just sue you for the damages if you break the car? Why would they care? I never leased a car but I thought they checked that you have enough money for the lease to prevent people from defaulting. But even if it is true, I think the price of the insurance (or at least some reference value for comparison, assuming there are multiple competing offers) should be included in the sticker price.
- inigyou 2mo agoThen they should include it in the rent. My landlord wants a Porsche too, he doesn't get to add a separate Porsche Fee or mandate me to pay a Porsche payment, he has to take some of the money coming out of the rent and put it towards his Porsche.
- therealpygon 2mo agoIf you’d rather pay $500 for the landlords insurance rather than $200 from your own policy, that sounds like a great plan. You’re paying for the Porsche either way.
- inigyou 2mo agoSounds like the landlord has an easy opportunity to earn an extra $300, why doesn't he?
- astura 2mo agoRenters insurance protects the landlord from liability claims. They don't care if you insure your own property, but I don't know of an insurance company that decouples liability and property. Also, renters insurance is cheap, I haven't rented in more than a decade but when I rented I was only paying less than $100/year for it. I just looked it up and currently the average premium for renters insurance is $15 to $22 a month.
- brookst 2mo agoRenters insurance is primarily protecting the landlord. If you cause a flood, if a guest slips and falls and sues you, etc. Your building would be fine if you found a renter’s insurance that didn’t cover your own goods (which would cost like $3/year less).