<p>I’ll offer a different take: I would ignore the requirement and try not to buy insurance by signing a waiver or whatever.</p>
<p>The liability of someone being injured in an apartment will be borne by the property owner.</p>
<p>The liability of a bathtub leaking would also be borne by the property owner.</p>
<p>Renters insurance primarily covers the value of her items in case her things are damaged in fire or by theft. “Actual value” is a problem as most of what she owns is probably worth a fraction of what she paid for it, and has more value to her than an appraiser. So I don’t trust that property insurance is a worthwhile thing from a financial standpoint.</p>
<p>Insurance in my view covers the risk of loss that we cannot afford on our own. Looking through your Ds belongings, what things can she not afford to replace, and would need to replace, should something happen? Probably there is not a lot.</p>
<p>It’s my opinion, and not shared by a lot of people in this forum. But in my 11 years as a renter, it’s worked for me.</p>
<p>I have not read through all the posts so this may have been said. Our D contacted our insurance co and took out a policy in her own name. She is covered for something like $3,000 (do not remember but at least this) for $87 a year. It had to be in her own name.</p>
<p>engineer4life, her lease requires that they get liability insurance. I don’t think they would let her get waived out of it since the lease is already signed with that requirement in it. I would have thought a policy, like she has had would have been fine since she only is responsible for her own property but the entire building has that requirement for each unit. I don’t know if it makes a difference, but the building is condo so each unit has a separate owner. Apparently the requirement comes from the condo association.</p>
<p>I believe the liability issue has more to do if the renter damages the property. For instance, if there is a fire in the apartment, the liability would cover damage to the apartment and any other apartments affected by the fire. The renter’s insurance would likely be primary and owner’s insurance secondary. In one sense, the renter is protected, because the owner set the liability limit they have to bear. </p>
<p>As to the division between roommates on which policy pays what and how much really isn’t important. Let the insurance companies work it out. I’m guessing it will go on each roommate’s claim record regardless of how much each pays.</p>
<p>The property owner should have insurance to cover the structure in case of things like a fire.</p>
<p>This is for the simple reason that a $100k liability policy won’t cover much in the way of structure damage due to something like a fire.</p>
<p>Again, I’ve lived 11 years without renters insurance and have no ill feelings about it. I have a personal hatred toward insurance because I believe insurance companies are preying off of the fears of people, and because it generally makes little financial sense to be well insured. There are times you need it (auto and health insurance, property insurance if you own) but there are lots of times you do not need insurance (renters insurance, cancelled vacation insurance, extended warranty insurance, vehicle glass insurance, tow insurance, vehicle maintenance insurance, etc, etc, etc.)</p>
<p>I’ve never had renter’s insurance, nor have we ever required tenants to have renter’s insurance. We do have liability insurance to protect us in case something happens to the properties we are renting out as landlords, as well as an umbrella policy to cover us if we are sued for amounts above & beyond the insurance. We have fire insurance, hurricane insurance and soon will get flood insurance. Never had renters insurance, nor have our kids so far with any of the places they have rented. The kids also did not have any insurance on their possessions, but did have an extended warranty that came because we charged the laptops we bought them & both stopped working properly.</p>
<p>If you have an insurance agent, s/he may be able to guide you to find a policy that would provide coverage. Sorry, have no experience. Have encouraged S to get renter’s insurance, but so far, he has not been interested & never done so. In the many years I was a tenant, I never had renter’s insurance either.</p>
<p>Gee, will ask my insurance agent if I should start having tenants have it, but our property manager never mentioned it, nor did our agent. Hmmmm.</p>
<p>A leaky bathtub from a broken pipe would be the property owners problem. A tub that overflowed and caused damage because one of the renters was filling the tub and forgot would fall to the renter’s insurance. If someone was injured IN their actual apartment, that would be their renter’s insurance. If they slipped on a sidewalk coming into the building it could go either way as they were there to see the renter but it would also depend on who was responsible for clearing the walk. As for which policy would pay, most likely both, but it might not depending on what happened, who was home at the time, etc. If your DD left her flat iron on and burned down the building, it would be her policy since it was her mistake. The nice thing is you won’t really have to deal with the ‘details’ of who pays, the insurance companies will deal with that.</p>
<p>HIMOM—YES REQUIRE YOUR TENANTS TO HAVE COVERAGE. Who cares about their “stuff” but if they damage your home, THEY should be responsible. You can file claims against their policy if they say, ruin all of the carpeting and you have to spend $5000 to replace, yet the damage deposit was only $500. The liability issues can be huge too if, say they have a party and someone gets hurt because they were drunk. They could sue your policy in the absence of a renter’s policy (yes, even if they were drunk). Then for them personally, if the house burns down and their stuff is destroyed, your homeowner’s policy does NOT cover anything of theirs in the house so they would lose everything. You want to be listed at LOSS PAYEE and ADDITIONAL INSURED on their policies so the insurance company pays YOU first if there is damage and you file a claim. Their policy will also pay first if someone sue them for an injury on the property.</p>
<p>engineer4life–while it seemed to work for you, do a google search on apartment residents being displaced by a fire in their building and how they lose everything in the fire and can’t afford to buy new clothing, a new tv to replace the one that was melted in the fire, etc. Even if you rent you still have stuff and do you really have the means to replace everything you own if your neighbor leaves a pan on the stove and forgets to turn it off or falls asleep smoking a cigarette?</p>
<p>First of all, if your insurance policy will pay you “fair market value” for your clothing, how much will they actually cut a check for? Last time I checked, I think the market value of the clothing in my closet was probably around $100 as used clothing doesn’t hold its value. (You can purchase “actual replacement cost” insurance, but it costs more and is certainly not the $83 policy.)</p>
<p>Second, a tv is not a necessity in life. You can life a fully functional life without a tv.</p>
<p>Third, I have an emergency fund that I can tap. I would recommend that any freshly minted college grad to start an emergency fund, so they can assume more risk and pay less in insurance value.</p>
<p>It shouldn’t surprise you that I do not have collison or comprehensive insurance on my vehicles, and never have in 12 years. I carry full liability only. High limits on the liability to protect my assets.</p>
<p>There are a lot of things that can happen in an apartment or rented house that aren’t covered by the landlord’s insurance. If a tenant accidentally spills a pot of boiling pasta on someone they could have severe burns and require expensive medical care. Who would pay for that? A cost of $120 per year to ensure that a tenant can be responsible to others in the unfortunate event that an accident happens is a small price to pay. One should have tenant’s (or homeowners) liability insurance for the same reason you should have auto liability insurance. </p>
<p>The insurance on one’s own belongings is, as engineer4life notes, inconsequential.</p>
<p>engineer4life–renter’s insurance, like homeowners insurance, is replacement cost not fair market value like auto insurance. Great for you that the day you graduated from college you had enough in the bank to cover everything you owned. Most people are not in that situation and for $10 month they would have to pay on a renter’s policy for about 125 years before they would cover the base property loss coverage of about $15,000. It’s a gamble I know, but that’s life I guess.</p>
<p>I had this discussion with my ds who was going to cancel his renters insurance because he didnt htink it was worth it since he doesn own a lot of “stuff”. When he heard that it appears to cover items stolen from a car, he was sold. Good thing, as his car was just stolen, with the company laptop in it Good news is he was more upset about the laptop than his company. But still. And the car is a goner :(</p>
<p>The person’s medical insurance should pay for the medical care. And if they don’t have medical insurance, they should. </p>
<p>This also brings up another very valid point about insurance. It makes you a target. No insurance and no money means you will be very unlikely to have lawyers suing you for petty damages. However, if you have a large insurance policy and someone knows it, that makes you a target. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can buy either replacement cost or fair market value. It depends on the policy type that you purchase, and is something to pay attention to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You filed an insurance claim on something that wasn’t owned by the person insured? Nice!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. You should have auto liability insurance because it is a mandate from the state, and because the liklehood that I might damage another vehicle is relatively high.</p>
<p>The likelyhood that a renter will injure someone else, that is not related to the condition of the structure, is small if you are a safe person. Renters insurance is cheap because claims are very rarely filed against it.</p>
<p>engineer4life–only in very limited circumstances can you buy a “fair market value” policy and even if you could WHY would you? I get that you don’t like insurance and I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you actually need what you hate so much, but for the rest of us, it is peace of mind knowing that if we have a huge storm that blows off our roof and damages all of our clothing we aren’t out $40,000 to pay for all of that stuff because I would rather sign the BACK of a check like that than the front…</p>
<p>As far as the example with the burned pasta–the medical insurance company of the person burned would be in their right to go after the person that spilled the water to reclaim any money they paid out. The medical insurance company will try every avenue NOT to pay a claim like that. It would very much be the renter’s insurance that SHOULD pay that claim.</p>
<p>As for being a target, you are a worse target having cash in the bank my friend. That is easily liquidated as are your retirement accounts, investments, your house, etc. My liability coverage as well as my large umbrella policy means, again, that I don’t sign the front of any check like that…</p>
<p>Homeowners insurance is important because I cannot abosrb the cost of a new roof or catastrophic damage to my home. This thread is about renters insurance, who do not have to worry about the cost to rebuild. They are only worried about the value of their possessions and potential liability.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In general, medical insurance does not try to figure out who was at fault for the reason for the medical visit and try to recoup the money, except in case of a car accident where it is expected another person has insurance and a police report has been filed.</p>
<p>Frequently people are injured by accidental causes of others, and the medical insurance company isn’t in the business of trying to recover damages unless it is clear that other insurance will pay.</p>
Good news is he was more upset about the laptop than his company. But still. And the car is a goner :(</p>