Skip to content
×
Try PRO Free Today!
BiggerPockets Pro offers you a comprehensive suite of tools and resources
Market and Deal Finder Tools
Deal Analysis Calculators
Property Management Software
Exclusive discounts to Home Depot, RentRedi, and more
$0
7 days free
$828/yr or $69/mo when billed monthly.
$390/yr or $32.5/mo when billed annually.
7 days free. Cancel anytime.
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
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

Updated about 10 years ago on . Most recent reply

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...