Menu

Home › Forums › Other › OT: Question for Piggs that own rental property.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 46 total)
1 2 3 4
  • Author
    Posts
  • July 1, 2009 at 8:06 PM #15970
    Ricechex
    Participant

    I own a rental house in the hood. The tenant, a single middle aged woman, has lived there for 3+ years. Excellent tenant. She has a dog, 18 lb mixed breed, Jack Russell Terrier (no pit, no rott, no german shepherd). The front yard is fenced with a picket fence, about 3 Ft high. She lets the dog out the front, and goes about her business in the house, leaving the security door locked, but the house door open.

    Apparently, a pedestrian put his hand through the fence and the dog bit him. Now, animal control and law enforcement are out there. She has not seen the victim of this horrendous crime, as he did not yell at her when this occurred, but contacted authorities instead. Law enforcement told her that the homeowner could face a law suit and that she needs a new fence. Told her she could put up chicken wire around the fence, but someone could still reach over the fence.

    Ummm, seriously, could I get sued? This seems a bit of overkill to me. A new fence seems a bit much too. After all, the dog was on my/her property when the incident occurred.

    July 1, 2009 at 8:30 PM #423639
    Zeitgeist
    Participant

    Maybe worse than being sued is not being able to afford landlord insurance. My agent told me not to rent to people with certain kinds of dog breeds, but said also that most dogs will bite even the small ones, especially when provoked. I think if you continue to allow dogs, they should be kept in back or where no one passing by can attract them. Just my two cents.

    July 1, 2009 at 8:30 PM #424218
    Zeitgeist
    Participant

    Maybe worse than being sued is not being able to afford landlord insurance. My agent told me not to rent to people with certain kinds of dog breeds, but said also that most dogs will bite even the small ones, especially when provoked. I think if you continue to allow dogs, they should be kept in back or where no one passing by can attract them. Just my two cents.

    July 1, 2009 at 8:30 PM #423869
    Zeitgeist
    Participant

    Maybe worse than being sued is not being able to afford landlord insurance. My agent told me not to rent to people with certain kinds of dog breeds, but said also that most dogs will bite even the small ones, especially when provoked. I think if you continue to allow dogs, they should be kept in back or where no one passing by can attract them. Just my two cents.

    July 1, 2009 at 8:30 PM #424149
    Zeitgeist
    Participant

    Maybe worse than being sued is not being able to afford landlord insurance. My agent told me not to rent to people with certain kinds of dog breeds, but said also that most dogs will bite even the small ones, especially when provoked. I think if you continue to allow dogs, they should be kept in back or where no one passing by can attract them. Just my two cents.

    July 1, 2009 at 8:30 PM #424380
    Zeitgeist
    Participant

    Maybe worse than being sued is not being able to afford landlord insurance. My agent told me not to rent to people with certain kinds of dog breeds, but said also that most dogs will bite even the small ones, especially when provoked. I think if you continue to allow dogs, they should be kept in back or where no one passing by can attract them. Just my two cents.

    July 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM #423674
    Coronita
    Participant

    Welcome to california…Where people make money the old fashion way…Sueing…

    I really hope you have a nice big insurance policy with umbrella coverage.Because if you skimped on insurance and bought the lowest liability coverage you could find and you do get sued, I hope your insurance co doesn’t just decide to pay out the liability amount they are responsible for and then tell the plantiff to go after you directly for the remainder amount.

    Happened to my parents, which some guy jammed a finger on something and they sued for $1million. Insurance company liability was like $100k, so the insurance company was about ready to cut a check for $100k and tell the plantiff to sue my parents directly for the $900k and tell my parents they are on their own in court. Fortunately upon investigation, the insurance co didn’t even think he should get more than $10k, so they ended up paying for the lawyer to settle out of court for $20k.

    This brings me to my next question. When you have nothing to lose, rentals are great things. When one has significant money to lose, do people weigh the benefit of the incremental increase in income from a rental property versus the additional liability risk one is now exposed to? Just curious.

    July 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM #424253
    Coronita
    Participant

    Welcome to california…Where people make money the old fashion way…Sueing…

    I really hope you have a nice big insurance policy with umbrella coverage.Because if you skimped on insurance and bought the lowest liability coverage you could find and you do get sued, I hope your insurance co doesn’t just decide to pay out the liability amount they are responsible for and then tell the plantiff to go after you directly for the remainder amount.

    Happened to my parents, which some guy jammed a finger on something and they sued for $1million. Insurance company liability was like $100k, so the insurance company was about ready to cut a check for $100k and tell the plantiff to sue my parents directly for the $900k and tell my parents they are on their own in court. Fortunately upon investigation, the insurance co didn’t even think he should get more than $10k, so they ended up paying for the lawyer to settle out of court for $20k.

    This brings me to my next question. When you have nothing to lose, rentals are great things. When one has significant money to lose, do people weigh the benefit of the incremental increase in income from a rental property versus the additional liability risk one is now exposed to? Just curious.

    July 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM #423904
    Coronita
    Participant

    Welcome to california…Where people make money the old fashion way…Sueing…

    I really hope you have a nice big insurance policy with umbrella coverage.Because if you skimped on insurance and bought the lowest liability coverage you could find and you do get sued, I hope your insurance co doesn’t just decide to pay out the liability amount they are responsible for and then tell the plantiff to go after you directly for the remainder amount.

    Happened to my parents, which some guy jammed a finger on something and they sued for $1million. Insurance company liability was like $100k, so the insurance company was about ready to cut a check for $100k and tell the plantiff to sue my parents directly for the $900k and tell my parents they are on their own in court. Fortunately upon investigation, the insurance co didn’t even think he should get more than $10k, so they ended up paying for the lawyer to settle out of court for $20k.

    This brings me to my next question. When you have nothing to lose, rentals are great things. When one has significant money to lose, do people weigh the benefit of the incremental increase in income from a rental property versus the additional liability risk one is now exposed to? Just curious.

    July 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM #424184
    Coronita
    Participant

    Welcome to california…Where people make money the old fashion way…Sueing…

    I really hope you have a nice big insurance policy with umbrella coverage.Because if you skimped on insurance and bought the lowest liability coverage you could find and you do get sued, I hope your insurance co doesn’t just decide to pay out the liability amount they are responsible for and then tell the plantiff to go after you directly for the remainder amount.

    Happened to my parents, which some guy jammed a finger on something and they sued for $1million. Insurance company liability was like $100k, so the insurance company was about ready to cut a check for $100k and tell the plantiff to sue my parents directly for the $900k and tell my parents they are on their own in court. Fortunately upon investigation, the insurance co didn’t even think he should get more than $10k, so they ended up paying for the lawyer to settle out of court for $20k.

    This brings me to my next question. When you have nothing to lose, rentals are great things. When one has significant money to lose, do people weigh the benefit of the incremental increase in income from a rental property versus the additional liability risk one is now exposed to? Just curious.

    July 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM #424415
    Coronita
    Participant

    Welcome to california…Where people make money the old fashion way…Sueing…

    I really hope you have a nice big insurance policy with umbrella coverage.Because if you skimped on insurance and bought the lowest liability coverage you could find and you do get sued, I hope your insurance co doesn’t just decide to pay out the liability amount they are responsible for and then tell the plantiff to go after you directly for the remainder amount.

    Happened to my parents, which some guy jammed a finger on something and they sued for $1million. Insurance company liability was like $100k, so the insurance company was about ready to cut a check for $100k and tell the plantiff to sue my parents directly for the $900k and tell my parents they are on their own in court. Fortunately upon investigation, the insurance co didn’t even think he should get more than $10k, so they ended up paying for the lawyer to settle out of court for $20k.

    This brings me to my next question. When you have nothing to lose, rentals are great things. When one has significant money to lose, do people weigh the benefit of the incremental increase in income from a rental property versus the additional liability risk one is now exposed to? Just curious.

    July 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM #424421
    Zeitgeist
    Participant

    They put their assets in a trust or some other type of legal protection for just those instances. This sounds like a good question for the attorneys.

    July 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM #424258
    Zeitgeist
    Participant

    They put their assets in a trust or some other type of legal protection for just those instances. This sounds like a good question for the attorneys.

    July 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM #424189
    Zeitgeist
    Participant

    They put their assets in a trust or some other type of legal protection for just those instances. This sounds like a good question for the attorneys.

    July 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM #423909
    Zeitgeist
    Participant

    They put their assets in a trust or some other type of legal protection for just those instances. This sounds like a good question for the attorneys.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 46 total)
1 2 3 4
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.