Quote from @Drew Sygit:
@Owen Rosen the links you shared pretty much only state a tenant shouldn't have to supply liability coverage to their landlord.
Of course they will say this as the provider does NOT want the extra liability of covering additional parties!
The landlord though, should WANT all the coverage they can get!
If a tenant causes a claim, why should the landlord's insurance pay - possibly resulting in an increase in premium or even a cancellation of the policy?
In a personal injury claim caused by the tenant, who's the plaintiff's attorney going to sue?
EVERYONE including the landlord!
So, again, why wouldn't the landlord want additional coverage from the tenant's policy?
Drew, that's not what the links say. It's also not what I'm saying. I actually write the policies and the insurance companies create the contracts and provide the coverage. Renters insurance is designed to protect the renter. Full stop.
Here's another link:
https://www.thezebra.com/auto-insurance/insurance-guide/addi...
That said, let's address your scenario. You think that in the event of a liability lawsuit, a landlord will be able to avoid notice of loss to their insurance by defending themselves with the coverage provided by the tenants renters insurance? There is basically zero chance of that occurring.
The first thing that the renters insurance would do is contact the landlord insurance and they would step in on the matter and/or they would subrogate any costs to the landlord's liability insurance.
There is risk for the landlord in being added as an insured though - specifically if the tenant and landlord are opposed in a matter. It turns black and white into gray and could jeopardize both parties ability to subrogate against the other.
