Topic 'Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?' in forum 'Home Improvement' - dslreports.com

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:25:33 EDT

walta posted : Cognizant At this point the tenet has collected all there belonging and found a new place.

The insurance policy does cover lost rental income, It must not be for long as they do not seem to be in any hurry to get things settled.

Walta

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Tue, 01 Jan 2013 22:02:03 EDT

markf posted : My advice, consult a lawyer competent in landlord/tenant law in your area.

As many have said, laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction so what may apply to one area will not apply to another. Same thing with insurance coverages.

A good lawyer cost money upfront, but saves a lot of grief and money down the road. I've been involved in litigation, a bit more money spend up front would have saved $10's of thousands later on.

As a landlord myself, I would evaluate the quality of tenant as well. Are they a long time tenant who pays the rent on time every month, generally respects the property and just made a mistake, or are they someone just off the street that you want to get rid of?

To those saying that the OP shouldn't rent a property that doesn't meet current codes, I would guess that there are millions of properties across NA that don't meet current codes and are sold and rented out every day.

If every property met today's codes, rents would have to shoot through the roof or landlords would walk away from their properties due to the high costs of doing everything up to code.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Tue, 01 Jan 2013 16:19:37 EDT

cognizantt posted : it's not possible to live in the apartment at the moment, so the tenant is currently living elsewhere.
you are under no obligation whatsoever to do the repairs asap. so you can stall the tenant and say you have no idea when at this point the tenant may return. if asked about when you will begin repairs, you can say right now you're only waiting for feedback from your insurance and your contractor.
keep stalling.
to have her back after what she did is ridiculous.
on top of your expenses for repairs, you're going to have lost rent. if you repair quickly and the tenant is back in, 1) you don't want that person there and 2) based on the tenant's level of intelligence, it's likely something else will happen.
so out the tenant goes.
notify the person that you'll be removing the personal property pending full repairs, have the person be there to take it all.
and that's it.
goodbye and good riddance.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:30:30 EDT

anon posted :

said by TheTechGuru:

One should not rent a place that is older than themselves, that way one understands everything in it. :-p

Not everyone has a choice monetarily speaking. It should be up to the owner to properly inform the tenant of ANY and ALL quirks and unknowns about the place. It's called full disclosure and should be done regardless of who or what you're renting/lending out.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:19:44 EDT

TheTechGuru posted : One should not rent a place that is older than themselves, that way one understands everything in it. :-p
--
CompTIA Network+ Certified

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Sat, 29 Dec 2012 05:31:15 EDT

anon posted : Maybe if you had a hospitable residence that didn't have outdated stuff in it, it wouldn't have been an issue.

Sure, you can blame the both of you on this one, but it isn't far fetched to think that most people today may not know what they can and cannot block due to people not updating their rentals to code. There's a reason those codes change year after year, let alone after decades. It's a safety hazard and honestly, maybe you should make it a point to do walkthroughs and point out the do's and don'ts in your rentals when you do rent them out.

I'd say it's as much your fault as the renter's.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:36:59 EDT

anon posted : Well, in many places, just having the home recovering from fire damage like that would take the choice out of the 2 party's hands. You can't rent a unit that is illegal to rent(which it is here), regardless of any agreements. Stuff like fire and water damage would be a big no-no for new renters, even if the law allowed existing renters to stay. The need for meth lab abatement is another one where you basically can't rent it, although in that case they're likely in jail/prison/CPS so it's a moot point. O_o

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:25:35 EDT

robbin posted : That would not have covered the damages if it had been the terms of the original lease. Why would it be a good idea now?

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:11:03 EDT

KrK posted : Sure, let her move back in.

Triple the deposit and double the rent.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:46:32 EDT

hortnut posted :

said by walta:

There is no mortgage is the insurance going to cut a check based on the estimate.

Walta

.

Have you read the Policy and its endorsements? No one here can accurately answer that question without the ability to do that. There are different Policies that cover Landlords and their Rentals. And each State has different rules as to what is offered and what they wish to be covered at a bare minimum.

Even who the Company is can determine how they will handle the Claim. When I started in the late 70's, one Company I was with was very tight. Move ahead a couple of years and a different Employer. They were extremely generous and had different Claims handling philosophies. Made my job that much more easy.

Also may want to get more than one estimate, which I highly recommend.

Good luck taking care of this for your Aunt.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:53:18 EDT

walta posted : My uncle recently passed away leaving my aunt to handle several properties.

I point out the tenet caused the fire and should be held responsible. My aunt looked at me like I had 3 heads.

I don’t think there any point in trying to recover money from someone struggles to pay their 500.00 a month rent.

I seems her tenet has found another place to rent I think that part is over.

Thanks Jack-in-VA. I had not even considered that floor furnaces are still available if only for insurance estimate.

There is no mortgage is the insurance going to cut a check based on the estimate.

Will there be a problem if we then install a gas furnace in the attic?

It is hard to be much help from 250 miles.

Walta

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:09:57 EDT

Jack_in_VA posted :

said by hortnut:

said by Jack_in_VA:
It's amazing how much legal advice is on a home improvement forum from people with no training or a license to practice law .
.

I agree. Especially since these forum/s bring folks from all 50 states, Canada and other Countries. Each State and Country has its own Rules and Laws. Without seeing the Policy and its endorsements, one cannot make any specific statements as to what is covered and what is not. I have yet to see in this thread or any other thread, a posting of any Policy and its endorsements in question.

Take the United States, there are many different levels of coverage available for Homeowners Coverage and the same is for Renters.

General Liability, in my opinion, is one of the most confusing and least understood Insurance Coverages Provided. It covers dog bites, slip and falls, accidents/events that take place off of the premises that the Insured maybe responsible for and a host of other events/situations.

Let your imagination run wild and most likely there is some sort of coverage or a duty to defend in the event of a Claim/Lawsuit. Shoot someone in the woods by accident while hunting with a Renter's Policy [or Homeowner's] - most likely covered. Your kid put the eye out of a neighbor's kid with his bow and arrow - most likely covered. Lose control of your shopping cart and plow into a car - covered. Your negligence causes damage to property of others or personal injury, whether on premises of off, is covered To give a few examples.

One does not need to be an Attorney to Adjust a Claim for an Insurance Company and many Adjusters know the Laws/Rules better than any General Practicing Attorney and many times one who specializes. They do it everyday of the week. I have had many of my Claims go to Suit, we would assign it to Defense Counsel, yet I would still handle it, with the goal of settling said Claim. If Companies had to use Attorney's, Premiums would probably double.

And then there are Laws and Rules governing Insurance Companies and Adjusters and those vary State to State. There are Company Adjusters and Licensed Independent Adjusters, not to mention Public Adjusters. And then some variations of those.

I have been both a Company and Licensed Independent Adjuster, but the area I worked in was the Pacific Northwest. And it has been a while, so I am unable to speak specifically as to current Policies or Laws that can affect the outcome of a Claim in my area or others. Only in general. Worked many years in those positions, until my own Business could pay my wages.

I also was appointed to Intercompany Claims Arbitration and saw the Work Product of other Companies and their Adjusters. Did that for 5 years in addition to my other work.

Sorry to say, have seen a great deal of misinformation in this thread about Insurance, and felt the need to clear the air. Hope this is helpful.

+1 A very good informative post. Thank you for taking the time to clear up some misconceptions on adjusters and differences in location, companies and policy language.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:08:49 EDT

garys_2k posted : The liability clause of the renter's insurance is what the landlord would rely upon in a case like this. The LL files a claim, his insurance company files a suit with the tenant's insurance company and they work it out as to who pays how much of the repair bill (beyond any deductible, of course, that the LL pays out of pocket).

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:03:35 EDT

Jack_in_VA posted :

said by tcope:

said by Jack_in_VA:

It's amazing how much legal advice is on a home improvement forum from people with no training or a license to practice law .

I've been adjusting claims for about 25 years now. Have handled hundreds (if not in the thousands) of claims in suit (probably have 30 in suit right now), attended hundreds of settlement conferences, meditations and trials on insurance claims.

A renters policy covers the _renter_... not the building owner. It provides the renter personal property coverage and liability coverage. Even though liability payments go to 3rd parties, it actually protects (covers) the renter. The renter does not get a policy on a certain property or location... it insures the renters property where ever it's located and also provides liability coverage on the renter where ever that renter may be (usually limited to US locations).

I think where you are going down the wrong path is that the renters policy _does not_ insure the dwelling, as you mentioned. That is, it's not listed on the policy as an insured location with coverage (such as a home owners policy would). The renters policy provides the renter _liability_ coverage for when they are legally liable for _property damage_. If the home the renter rents just catches on fire and burns to the ground, the renters policy only provides the renter a defense as they are not legally liable. But if the renter _caused_ the home to burn down, the policy provides a defense in the form of a payment to the home owner.

I've provided a quote from a website explaining what coverage a renters policy provides. Feel free to search yourself to confirm this information.

I assume your experience in Utah as applicable to all the other states and to top it off you accuse me of going down the wrong path? I stated and stand by the renters policy I purchased for my dad specifically excluded any damage to the dwelling in writing. How much plainer can I make it? Has it ever occurred you that Utah may have completely different insurance regulations than other states? My X wife was a broker for about 50 insurance companies and spent many hours studying for the tests needed to get all the necessary licenses, so I'm not a complete idiot.

Bottom line is you still are not a legal expert and are not licensed to practice law which you are trying to do now. An insurance adjuster is in no way a legal source for information. All the information you post is just your opinion as you understand it and you should state that.

Right now I have my lawyers working on some issues for me. I sure as heck wont depend on a bunch of keyboard lawyers on a home improvement forum.

But all this is off topic so how about we get back to the fact the OP needs to get actual legal advice on allowing his renter back when repairs are made. We can speculate forever and accomplish nothing.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:52:40 EDT

hortnut posted :

said by Jack_in_VA:
It's amazing how much legal advice is on a home improvement forum from people with no training or a license to practice law .
.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:48:06 EDT

Kramer posted : Never mind. You don't have code upgrade.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:45:28 EDT

tcope posted :

said by Coma:

The fact is, you can write a contract to do what ever you want.

To a certain extent... but only if you are a surplus lines carrier. If you are not, your policy is regulated and needs to be approved by the state its written in. But even then, a renters policy is going to provide liability coverage. If it did not, it would not be a "renters policy".

I'm hoping my prior post explains where I think the confusion lies.

In the case of the OP, if I were his property carrier I'd certainly go after the renter for payment. But as mentioned in a prior post, I'd certainly like to see what knew about the heater. Still, there is going to be a very good argument that she either knew it was a heater or should have known. That is why a renter should have liability insurance... to offer them a defense in these matters. As the OP, I'd at least ask the renter to pay the deductible (if the OP's carrier was not going to seek recovery from the renter). I'd also add some wording into the lease that the renter needed to maintain an insurance policy. This not only goes toward protecting the dwelling but also protecting the OP against liability. If the renter has someone over and that someone "slips" (or is insured) they would probably attempt to hold the home owner liable. I won't get into this but it happens _all of the time_.... even when it's the renters negligence. The OP should be listed as an Additional Insured and perhaps even an Additional Interest (if possible) on the renters policy.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:39:02 EDT

bobjohnson posted :

said by Frank:

said by jjoshua:

said by tcope:

I'm guessing you don't have, as part of the rental contract, that the tenant have renters insurance. I'd _certainly_ add that in your lease upon next renewal. I'd also require that you be listed as an Additional Interest on the policy. That way you should be informed if the policy is no longer active (you may also want to contact the insurance company every few months and confirm it's still active). Also put in the lease that lacking a renters insurance policy that you have the right to give the tenant xx days notice and can evict for this reason (check to see what the law will allow in your area).

Renter's insurance only covers the tenant's personal property and personal liability. I doubt that you can force a tenant to have a policy unless you're the government and we're talking about health insurance.

Yes a tenant can be forced to have a renter's insurance policy. The last two leases i've signed (where the landlord was a corporation that owns many many properties) have had proof of renter's insurance listed as a requirement prior to being able to reside in the property. I'm pretty sure that's there for the benefit of the landlord in case something goes wrong (ie: fire) otherwise it wouldn't be a requirement.

Nationwide requires me to have my tenants carry renters insurance to be able to have better coverage. It is a part of the lease that a lawyer wrote up for me. In the op's situation I would do what I could to terminate the lease and not allow them back in.
--

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:35:37 EDT

tcope posted :

said by Jack_in_VA:

It's amazing how much legal advice is on a home improvement forum from people with no training or a license to practice law .

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:17:04 EDT

PSWired posted : By my understanding, the liability portion of MD renter's insurance covers other peoples' possessions that are damaged in the unit you're renting, or bodily injury that occurs to nonfamily members occupying the unit. The normal slips/falls/etc that a homeowner's policy would cover, except applied to a rental.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:16:30 EDT

Coma posted :
The fact is, you can write a contract to do what ever you want.

--
December is National Fruit Cake Month

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:11:09 EDT

microphone posted : I have a separate line item that specifically mentions liability. There is a minimum amount of coverage required by the landlord. The landlord does also have their own building coverage.

My best guess for my policy would be:
->Tenant leaves deep fryer on and damages kitchen cabinets ... tenant policy pays for damages
->Lightning hits building ... Landlord policy pays for building damage. Tenant policy pays for personal property

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 07:42:36 EDT

Coma posted :

said by Jack_in_VA:

It's amazing how much legal advice is on a home improvement forum from people with no training or a license to practice law .

Ain't that the truth.

:uhh:

--
December is National Fruit Cake Month

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 07:37:50 EDT

Jack_in_VA posted :

said by tcope:

said by Jack_in_VA:

That's not the same as damage to the landlords unit. Probably refers to refrigerator, stove, washer/dryer etc.

A renters policy providers the _insured_ liability coverage for property damage and bodily injury. It's not limited to the property inside of a building. In this case it would address the damage to the building itself.

I bought renters insurance for 15 years for my father. The agent (mine) and the policy plainly stated it did not cover the building. Only his personal property. The owner carries the dwelling insurance.

It's amazing how much legal advice is on a home improvement forum from people with no training or a license to practice law .

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 04:16:03 EDT

slyphoxj posted :

said by slyphoxj:

said by nunya:

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-02-08/article/29147?headline=The-Care-and-Feeding-of-Floor-Furnaces&status=301

You don't see them much any more. They are banned in a lot of places.

Just the thought of having a big, dangerously hot grate that I'd have to tiptoe around in a hallway or living room just gives me the jeebies... might as well have an old-fashioned "franklin" stove in the middle of the living room! If I were looking to buy a place that had one, I'd either replace it with a safer heating system before the first winter in the place or just pass on the place altogether. Hopefully I'm never in a position where I have to rent and can't choose another place that doesn't have a floor furnace.

I'm just boggled at why these were popular at one point... they don't heat all rooms in the home evenly, you have to tiptoe around that bigass grate, stuff (usually kid's toys and other small objects) commonly fell down into the grate creating a fire hazard.

I'd take an old "octopus" gravity furnace any day over a floor furnace!

Another thought... It may be possible to prevent a fire hazard by being extremely careful to not place any objects on the heat grate, but not if a cat or other pet bats a toy around and the toy lands on the grate.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 03:34:17 EDT

slyphoxj posted :

said by nunya:

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-02-08/article/29147?headline=The-Care-and-Feeding-of-Floor-Furnaces&status=301

You don't see them much any more. They are banned in a lot of places.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 23:29:27 EDT

tcope posted :

said by Jack_in_VA:

That's not the same as damage to the landlords unit. Probably refers to refrigerator, stove, washer/dryer etc.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:24:44 EDT

Clever_Proxy posted : The renter is most likely more upset about her clothes getting ruined. I'm surprised she isn't demanding her clothes be replaced by the landlord.

I've seen crazier things.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:09:09 EDT

TheTechGuru posted : True, but that's assuming everything is done correctly.

Sometimes minor upgrades are done to the house without the drop to the house being upgraded thus the wires to the house get hot and the insulation melts then the unfused wires short causing huge arcs that light the dry winter yard on fire.

Glad I have a 200amp supply line.
--
CompTIA Network+ Certified

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:53:31 EDT

Zach 58 posted : Even LP and Natural Gas units with millivolt controls are still in production! For those with enough connected brain cells to remember the grill will be HOT when the unit is operating, one of these may be a viable option for backup heat since they require no electricity. The manual does state these have high-limits and controls to cycle the burner to help keep grill temps down a bit.

»www.empirezoneheat.com/ehs/index···lnid=80#
--
Zach

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:45:10 EDT

patcat88 posted :

said by TheTechGuru:

Electric Dryer 30amps + Electric Stove 50amps = 80amps

Hope no one is ever using all 4 burners and the oven to cook a thanksgiving dinner and doing laundry at the same time.

Is the water heater electric too?

80% rule says its more like 24 + 40 = 64. It will have to be 15 minutes for 64 amp load to blow a fuse with that low of an overload. Your on thin water with that load, but its not fire inducing assuming everything is fused correctly.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:02:03 EDT

Jack_in_VA posted :

said by Blogger:

said by Jack_in_VA:

said by nunya:

You don't see them much any more. They are banned in a lot of places.

Wonder if the writer even has been around one? I lived in a home with one for 17 years. My dad, mom and 2 sisters did not die from CO poisoning, the house did not burn down and the temperature was not that difficult to regulate.

I grew up in a home with several of them--or at least several vents to one. They were very common for homes built during the period of the forties in California.

Never had a problem with it but then of course we never sat anything on top of the vent either. Maybe there is a connection there?

In spite of some posts here I googled "Floor Furnace", Gas fired floor furnace and oil fired floor furnace. I found out they are very much alive and well with many types and manufacturers and even carry ul listings.

[att=1]

»www.barnesheatingandcooling.com/···temid=26

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 20:12:45 EDT

mattmag posted :

My concern would revolve around how a jury would view the testimony of your tenant if it came down to that. I believe they would be quite sympathetic to the situation, and she could easily testify that she "thought it was just a heat register" and had no idea what a floor furnace was.

Unless she was given strict instructions on the proper use of such a unit, I'd think she has a very strong chance to prevail.

Not that I think you are wrong and she is right, I just know how juries view such situations.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 20:11:40 EDT

Jack_in_VA posted :

said by microphone:

I have renters insurance that covers both personal property and the cost of damage to the landlords property within the unit. The landlord recently mandated it but I already had it and simply had to have the landlord listed as an interested party.

quote:
damage to the landlords property within the unit.

That's not the same as damage to the landlords unit. Probably refers to refrigerator, stove, washer/dryer etc.

Last week some clown was keeping snakes in a storage unit using heat lamps to keep them warm. Well the lamps started a fire and burned 40 units up. The owner stated that her insurance would cover the units but not the renters contents that they had to have their own renters insurance to cover.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 20:03:34 EDT

Blogger posted :

said by Jack_in_VA:

said by nunya:

You don't see them much any more. They are banned in a lot of places.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:59:23 EDT

microphone posted : I have renters insurance that covers both personal property and the cost of damage to the landlords property within the unit. The landlord recently mandated it but I already had it and simply had to have the landlord listed as an interested party.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:46:43 EDT

Cheese posted : The article is almost 5 years old as well

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:31:09 EDT

tcope posted : A renters policy is going to have two parts. The forst part is Liability coverage. This is when the renter is liable for injury to others or damage to their personal property.

The second part of the policy is to cover the renters personal property.

Liability coverage may be even more important for people to have then covering their own personal property. In this case of this post the renter us lucky that the home did not burn down. If it had, and the cause could be found, the OP's own carrier would have paid the lose and sought recovery from the renter. Where is the renter going to get $100,000 to pay for the loss of the home? Even if the renters liability limits were less, at least the renters carrier could (would) offer up the limits in return for a release (and the OP's carrier would most certainly sign a release for the policy limits as the alternative is.... nothing from the renter).

"Personal liability

Personal liability renters insurance policies may cover bodily injury and property damage to others caused by your actions or negligence."

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:28:46 EDT

Jack_in_VA posted :

said by nunya:

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-02-08/article/29147?headline=The-Care-and-Feeding-of-Floor-Furnaces&status=301

You don't see them much any more. They are banned in a lot of places.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:23:41 EDT

Jack_in_VA posted :

said by Pacrat:

When I was first married, we rented a small apartment in a converted two-story house. Our renters insurance covered only our loss... the contents of the apartment, nothing regarding the structure of the building. There was no liability coverage at all, because that was deemed to be the landlord's domain as the property owner. I seriously doubt the tennant would be found liable for damages... unless found to be so by a court ruling. Either way it's going to cost the landlord some money.

The fly in the ointment, so to speak, is whether or not the building is being legally rented and approved for occupancy as a commercial entity.

Exactly it covers the personal property of the renter. Nothing at all with the structure.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:21:50 EDT

Jack_in_VA posted :

said by tcope:

said by jjoshua:

It addresses losses that the tenant is liable for... such as in this case. If the tenant had a renters policy, it should have paid for this loss.

Most apartment complexes require tenants have a renters policy but I'd say most don't enforce this. I work as an adjuster and handle claims for a plan called "Renters Legal Liability". It's not a Renters policy but I can say that the complex force places this policy on any renter that cannot show that they have their own Renters policy. So I'd think a landlord can enforce the requirement that a renter have insurance. It only makes sense and if it's in the rental contract I'd think it could be enforced. However, the landlord would still need to follow state laws on eviction.

That's interesting when I bought my dad renters insurance it specifically stated it covered his personal property and not the dwelling (Apt).

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:16:17 EDT

nunya posted : »www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issu···atus=301

You don't see them much any more. They are banned in a lot of places.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:10:50 EDT

80289148 posted : What is a floor furnace?

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:08:48 EDT

Pacrat posted : When I was first married, we rented a small apartment in a converted two-story house. Our renters insurance covered only our loss... the contents of the apartment, nothing regarding the structure of the building. There was no liability coverage at all, because that was deemed to be the landlord's domain as the property owner. I seriously doubt the tennant would be found liable for damages... unless found to be so by a court ruling. Either way it's going to cost the landlord some money.

The fly in the ointment, so to speak, is whether or not the building is being legally rented and approved for occupancy as a commercial entity.
--
Keep your eye on the ball, your shoulder to the wheel, your nose to the grindstone, and your ear to the ground. Now, try to work in that position!!!

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:05:15 EDT

Frank posted :

said by jjoshua:

said by tcope:

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:10:50 EDT

tcope posted :

said by jjoshua:

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 08:58:56 EDT

jjoshua posted :

said by tcope:

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 08:43:09 EDT

tcope posted : Up to you if you continue to rent. More info needs to be considered then you posted here. But your carrier should be seeking recovery from the at fault tenant. They may not, which would be their oversight. If nothing else, I'd ask that the renter pay your deductible (on a side note, you cannot sign a release for that unless you know for a fact that your carrier won't be seeking recovery). This was an accident but the renter is also liable for the damage.

I'm guessing you don't have, as part of the rental contract, that the tenant have renters insurance. I'd _certainly_ add that in your lease upon next renewal. I'd also require that you be listed as an Additional Interest on the policy. That way you should be informed if the policy is no longer active (you may also want to contact the insurance company every few months and confirm it's still active). Also put in the lease that lacking a renters insurance policy that you have the right to give the tenant xx days notice and can evict for this reason (check to see what the law will allow in your area).

Renting out a home is no easy matter. It's a business. You may want to run the lease by an attorney in your area. Would probably cost $500 or so.

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 08:26:16 EDT

jjoshua posted :

said by walta:

She piled her laundry on top of the floor furnace and went out for the day.

The sad part is that she can’t see that she might as well have put a match to the place.

Why? They didn't catch fire all of the other times that she did that. Her clothes were always nice and dry when she got home.