Insurance question.

[flashie*]

This is the scenario.

A person rents a property.

They have no contents insurance..........(landlord has the house insured)

They accidentally cause a fire which causes significant damage...........(that it was accidental is confirmed by fire investigation report)

Insurance company repairs house.

Tenant moves back in.

Now the insurance company is wanting the tenant to repay a considerable amount (in the 10's of 1000's) in recovery as it was their negligent behaviour which caused the fire.........(a pot was left on the stove)

Is it normal for the insurance company to do this..............or is just this insurance company?

[bella_again]

Sounds like an awful situation.  I would tell her  to obtain free legal advice from a community legal service.  Every state has them, its an awful position to be in but she should have had contents insurance.  I think that this should be compulsory to avoid this kind of situation occurring in the future for tenants. Seems insane its not.

[gleee58]

---

@joz*garage wrote:

what does an extra cover landlord's insurance policy cover for then?

---

I think it must be in case the tenant doesn't have contents cover and it must vary between companies.  I just know ours didn't chase the tenant for the gate damage. 

[gleee58]

---

@bella_again wrote:

Sounds like an awful situation.  I would tell her  to obtain free legal advice from a community legal service.  Every state has them, its an awful position to be in but she should have had contents insurance.  I think that this should be compulsory to avoid this kind of situation occurring in the future for tenants. Seems insane its not.

---

It certainly does seem insane that it's not either compulsory or covered under the rental insurance.

[ten*teeny*tiny*toes]

What an eye opener this thread is. I originally thought the message was for tenants to make sure that their landlords had Landlords jnsurance and questioned why the onus was on the tenant. Now the blame lies with the tenant not having contents insurance..?Insurance is a huge expense and one that I am willing to bet, for renters on a budget, is one of the first things to go.

So a win both ways for the insurance companies. All bases covered.

[joz*garage]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

---

@joz*garage wrote:

what does an extra cover landlord's insurance policy cover for then?

---

I think it must be in case the tenant doesn't have contents cover and it must vary between companies.  I just know ours didn't chase the tenant for the gate damage. 

---

im pretty sure the last landlord i dealt with had landlord's insurance, i cant imagine why else he asked roughly what my contents was worth and scribbled it on the tenants agreement

on this current house i own.. a RE agent suggested you must have landlord's insurance, if i want to rent it out. i dunno if it's by law here in W.A or that varies from state to state?.

never heard of this scenario before, i pity the tenants here... and the loss of their contents too

[lyndal1838]

I imagine the landlord would have to be insured for enough to cover the tenant contents.   If they were destroyed because of a fault with the property the tenant could sue the landlord.

Oh I am glad I own my home.....it is all too complicated.

[gleee58]

---

@joz*garage wrote:

---

@gleee58 wrote:

---

@joz*garage wrote:

what does an extra cover landlord's insurance policy cover for then?

---

I think it must be in case the tenant doesn't have contents cover and it must vary between companies.  I just know ours didn't chase the tenant for the gate damage. 

---

im pretty sure the last landlord i dealt with had landlord's insurance, i cant imagine why else he asked roughly what my contents was worth and scribbled it on the tenants agreement

on this current house i own.. a RE agent suggested you must have landlord's insurance, i dunno if it's by law here in W.A or that varies from state to state?.

never heard of this scenario before, i pity the tenants here... and the loss of their contents too

---

Maybe they thought you would be renting space out to random tenants.

Yeah, it certainly is an eye opener.

[b3llag1na]

Not quite the same scenario, but years back my ex drove his (uninsured) car into a parked car and the insurance company for the the damaged car made us pay for the repairs.

Apparently if we had had insurance the two insurance companies would have struck a deal, and we would have only had to pay the excess.

I am thinking this might be the same story here - had the tenants taken out contents cover , they may have only been stuck with paying the excess.

A close friend had her kitchen destroyed in the same way only about 18 months ago - and only had to pay the excess. She got a lovely new kitchen, plus the whole house repainted.

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

The tenant should seek legal advise.

If the tenant has no assets (due to the fire), now might be a time to claim bankruptcy, so the insurance company could not touch

them.....maybe.

But, an investigation found it  not to be their fault.....why would they pay?..... They could blame the faulty kitchen (caused the fire)

and sue the homeowner for replacement of all their belongings...... interesting scenario.

How exactly did the fire start?

[lloydslights]

Now the insurance company is wanting the tenant to repay a considerable amount (in the 10's of 1000's) in recovery as it was their negligent behaviour which caused the fire.........(a pot was left on the stove)

^^^^was in the opening post.

DEB