Skip to content
Two investors reviewing resources on a laptop

Get industry-leading resources — for free

Unlock resources for every investing strategy and stage with a free account.

By continuing, you agree to BiggerPockets LLC's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

×
Take Your Forum Experience
to the Next Level
Create a free account and join over 3 million investors sharing
their journeys and helping each other succeed.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
Already a member?  Login here
Followed Discussions Followed Categories Followed People Followed Locations
Insurance
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

User Stats

222
Posts
38
Votes
Chris Stromdahl
  • Rental Property Investor
  • Seattle, WA
38
Votes |
222
Posts

Landlord "Loss of Use" liability?

Chris Stromdahl
  • Rental Property Investor
  • Seattle, WA
Posted

A friend of mine that owns one investment property recently warned me of the need to require tenants to have insurance due to the "loss of use" liability. 

The main water line to his property recently burst, flooding the entire basement and leaving the property uninhabitable. Luckily his tenants have family they can stay with, but he did not require them to have insurance, therefore they had no loss of use protection.

Question:

Do you require your tenants to have insurance?

In your experience, if a tenant chooses to not carry renter's insurance, is there any liability on behalf of the landlord in a scenario such as this/similar scenario? 

  • Just assume the landlord had been keeping the property up and the loss of use was not due to negligence.

Thanks, Chris

Loading replies...