LandLord Insurance vs Renters Insurance vs Home Owners Insurance

[Robert Treherne]

I've noticed a fair amount of crossover in the various insurances.

So my question (and the topic I'd like to open for discussion) is the pros and cons of each.
Is there any crossover, are multiple insurances needed or are some redundant, can multiple properties be put on the same policy for added value etc?

My particular case involves Renting out home(s) in the state of Alabama that are fully paid for but feel free to discuss other settings.

[Denise Evans]

For a landlord, you need landlord's insurance rather than homeowner's. It covers more landlord specific risks, and will either cover Fair Housing complaints or you can add a rider for that. Just because you are exempt from FH laws doesn't mean someone can't find a lawyer to sue you. It can cost $5,000 to $10,000 just to get a case thrown out of court. Also, HUD takes the position there are no exemptions for race-based discrimination, because that was outlawed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which contained no exemptions.

It is a good idea to require tenants to carry renter's insurance. It provides a pool for them to use if they suffer a loss, instead of looking around to see who they can sue. It also includes liability insurance, which could cover a deductible on the landlord's own insurance if the tenant burns the place to the ground or something similar.  Some landlords buy the renter's insurance themselves, and then include the cost in the pricing for the rent.  We know its all the same money going out the door each month for the tenants, but psychologically it really provides a competitive edge and makes sure they all have insurance.