Landlord asking to be “additional insured” on renter’s policy

[Balboa]

I’ve done a little googling and seen the terms “additional insured” and “additional interest” thrown around. Any Piggs with experience or who can point me to a trusted source of info? Some details:

–I don’t have renter’s insurance.
–My current lease does not require it.
–I got an email this week telling me the landlord’s new carrier requires us all to have insurance.
–The same email said I “just need to add [property owner’s LLC] as an additional insured.” Very casual like.

In the first place, do I have to do anything about this at all while the current lease is in effect? I can’t see why I would.

Secondly, I can see reasons why they would want me to insure personal property, and I can see why they would want to be named as “additional interest” so they can see I am maintaining that insurance. But *as a renter*, do I have any incentive to add them as “additional insured”?

Landlord is a lawyer with multiple properties in LLCs. Some of the tenants at this particular property recently went without heat for more than a year, so we know the landlord isn’t a huge stickler for the rules…

[Balboa]

That’s my thinking, Flyer. The insurance isn’t totally objectionable, but this “additional insured” business leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I did just re-re-read the lease, and I do have an obligation to comply with requests that prevent landlord from losing insurance and/or that avoid an increase in premiums…I guess if I really wanted to go to the mat, I’d ask for documentation from the carrier that shows the premium situation and exactly what the carrier is requiring of tenants.

I normally wouldn’t sweat this actually, but the landlord has made some recent decisions with regard to the neighbors that have put my guard up. It’s unfortunate.

[FlyerInHi]

Go by what the lease says.
If the landlord didn’t make it a term of the lease, just ignore the email.

If you don’t care about your personal property ot having insurance, then you don’t need it. Not your problem.

[NotCranky]

Call an insurance company and get a quote with the additional insured LL just to know what you are dealing with as you mull the problem over. I have an easement that requires I have the owner of that property as additional insureds , it didn’t cost me anything to have the owners added.

I know that doesn’t deal with the problem of being required to get insurance you don’t want but it might help if you think insuring the landlord is a big deal. Could be a common part of standard policies?

[XBoxBoy]

Seems to me that what your landlord is trying to do is move his insurance costs from his policy to you. I don’t know if this is the best way to go about it, but you might get quotes for the cost of insurance, and then inform your landlord you’ll be glad to purchase the insurance if he’ll lower your rent by that amount. Thus moving the insurance cost back to him. As I said, I’m not sure this is the best way to go, but it’s certainly one possible negotiation strategy.

[Hobie]

This may be the beginning of an interesting trend. Either supply landlord with addn’l insured or purchase a rider from landlord.

Balboa asked if there was any incentive to name them addn’l insured, I think not. Plus there is a cost (~100 ish) to add someone/company as an addn’l insured on your policy.

As Xbox mentioned owner is offloading some of the cost to you. At the same time, having access to a much larger pool of money for liability.

Wonder if owner/lawyer is a plaintiff attny? Again, another interesting angle.

Can’t see this as a trend for all properties, just higher end I’m guessing.

[moneymaker]

He sounds like a slum lord in the making to me, if not already.He may be passing on to you what the insurance is trying to pass on to him by not insuring personal property. Definitely find out who he is insured with and go from there.Could be just his brash way of saying your personal belongings are not covered under his insurance,which is normal.

[FlyerInHi]

To be fair, it makes sense to require renter’s insurance. For example if there’s a flood and the tenant has to be temporarily relocated, insurance would take care of that.

As a landlord, I don’t require renter’s insurance. But I think I should. I had a leak and the tenant was very nice and worked with me so I just offered a credit without being asked. But the tenant could have said “it’s your problem, I can’t live here while the repairs are made”.

[Coronita]

Ok, I didn’t want to chime in until I had some facts. I asked my good insurance agent that is also a good friend of mine and he offered the following explanation.

There are two different terms on an insurance policy: “additional insured” versus “interested party”

When you list someone on your policy as “interested party”: that person(s) will be notified if there is any changes to your insurance policy, but your policy does not extend any coverage to him.

When you list someone on your policy as “additional insured”, you are extending whatever liability coverage to that person(s)…..

The landlord is probably doing this because he/she probably was in a situation in which a tenant did something, and both the tenant and himself ended up getting sued. So he’s probably trying to get on people’s renter insurance “additional insured” to mitigate this. For example, my agent was explaining to me that he had a client in which his tenant poured cat litter down a toilet from the upstairs. Both the tenant and the landlord were named in the lawsuit.

My agent actually says for individual renter’s insurance, most underwriters will NOT allow the policy holder to list anyone else as “additionally insured”, so it’s a moot point. And frankly, if the landlord asked me to do this, I’d give him the finger salute.

What the landlord might require you to do is to list him as “interested party” so that he knows, for example ,if you drop renter’s insurance coverage. I think that would probably be fair game.

Apparently, this sort of question gets asked a lot, so he’s not surprised it came up on this forum. But, again, according to him, most underwriters won’t allow you to add a landlord as “additional insured”.

BTW: if you’re in the market for renter’s insurance and want someone to talk to, I can give you my agent’s contact information. He’s a nice guy, and I’ve known him for about 15+years. Just PM me.

Also, FWIW, on all my leases, I specifically say that tenants are required to obtain renter’s insurance. But I don’t get into details of how much, nor do I require that I’m listed as an interested party.

[Balboa]

Thanks everyone, and special thanks to Flu for making the call I don’t have time for! I confirms my sense of where things *should* stand.

I think I’ll get the renter’s insurance, but I am not doing the “additional insured” bit, even if I were to go with a carrier that offered it. If landlord insists, he’ll have to pony up the documents that show my non-compliance would violate my lease, i.e. raise his rates or cause him to lose coverage.

My lease also gives me the option of covering the cost of his higher premium, if there is one, instead of insuring myself. If that’s cost effective for the renter, I would be blown away.

The other thing that’s curious is whether he actually has this new carrier yet or not — if it’s the carrier that is requiring insurance and additional insured status, wouldn’t they require proof before the policy took effect?

For a law office, the language is terribly imprecise. For example, I’m pretty sure you can’t “renew” a policy with a new carrier. They could be using “additional insured” incorrectly, too.

Thanks as always! (Maybe this will be my last rental…)

[Coronita]

[quote=Balboa]Thanks everyone, and special thanks to Flu for making the call I don’t have time for! I confirms my sense of where things *should* stand.

I think I’ll get the renter’s insurance, but I am not doing the “additional insured” bit, even if I were to go with a carrier that offered it. If landlord insists, he’ll have to pony up the documents that show my non-compliance would violate my lease, i.e. raise his rates or cause him to lose coverage.

My lease also gives me the option of covering the cost of his higher premium, if there is one, instead of insuring myself. If that’s cost effective for the renter, I would be blown away.

The other thing that’s curious is whether he actually has this new carrier yet or not — if it’s the carrier that is requiring insurance and additional insured status, wouldn’t they require proof before the policy took effect?

For a law office, the language is terribly imprecise. For example, I’m pretty sure you can’t “renew” a policy with a new carrier. They could be using “additional insured” incorrectly, too.

Thanks as always! (Maybe this will be my last rental…)[/quote]

In every one of my condo’s insurance policy, there was never a requirement on my policy to require the renter has renter’s insurance before I could get insurance for my condo. As it was explained to me, two completely different policies for two different purposes. The condo policy covers the landlord’s dwelling plus his liability. The renter’s insurance cover’s the tenant’s personal belongings plus his/her liability.

In all likelihood, his insurance went up, and he probably is using this as an excuse for you to pay more for the cost of his insurance, and wants to create a pain in the ass situation so rather than you go out and get your own renter’s insurance, you just pay the additional cost he wants you to pay for his insurance…. If it was for me, I wouldn’t do it. I’d just go get my own renter’s insurance. I doubt whatever his insurance is will cover the cost of your personal belongs or cover your liability if something happens. If you’re going to be paying for insurance, you might as well spend money for insurance that benefits you, not him.

[meadandale]

https://www.effectivecoverage.com/3913/why-should-my-landlord-be-landlord-additional-insured-on-my-renters-insurance/

[Hatfield]

Great info in that link, thanks!

[svelte]

Interesting story on this topic.

Over a decade ago I had a friend who lived in rented house in a small California town. That house caught fire and burned – a total loss.

A few weeks later the landlord called my friend and asked him what insurance company he had used, as they needed to call them and get the $$ to rebuild the home.

My friend had to explain to them it was the *owner’s* responsibility to insure the building, not the renters. That house sat a burned out shell for years after that. I can only guess the landlord didn’t understand the basic rules of renting. If they had had a loan on it, the bank would have told them pretty quickly they had to have insurance.

I never would have believed this had I not talked to the guy personally. Strange things happen in this world.

[Author]

Posts