Require Tenants Make a Relocation Expenses Claim?

[Greg Hoffmann]

Hi Folks

I have a duplex in CA and the lease requires the tenants carry a renter's policy. Recently there were some maintenance issues that required they vacate the premises and stay in a hotel. I've agreed in principle to reimburse them for the relocation expenses but I want to require that they first make a claim through their insurance, and I'll cover what remains. 

Does anyone know if this is legal or even the "regular" order? Could they claim that they're entitled to reimbursement immediately and in full from me?  It doesn't seem right that I'd have to just take it in good faith that they'll submit the claim on my behalf after they've already been made whole.

Additionally, I've prorated the rent/utilities for the full number of days they were out of the premises.

[Bo Bond]

From an insurance point of view, if the damage/issue was caused by a "covered cause of loss" (fire, water damage, lightning, sewer backup, wind, hail, etc.), then the tenant should have protection under their own renters policy to rent a hotel.  This is usually "not" covered under the owner/landlord policy for that rental home.  The "loss of use" (aka additional living expenses) coverage falls to the policy of the person who's having to move out and relocate for a certain amount of time.  In this case, your tenant.

However, if this damage/issue is "not" caused by a "covered cause of loss" and is just typical maintenance, then I'm 99.9% sure neither you nor the tenant will have insurance protection.  If this is the case, then I'd suggest you use your best business judgement in this situation, and any advice of others that have been involved in similar situations. Hope this helps!