It is inexpensive AND provides prima facia proof you are not trying to structure your finances to make yourself judgment proof should your tenants (or their guests) be injured and you are held liable.Others may have a different opinion but $300 a year is protecting far more than just the equity you outlined above.I've been told by a couple different people that you can only be held liable above and beyond your liability coverage to the extent of the equity in the home.I don't know who told you that but it is absolutely not true.

While most are professionals who are dedicated to doing the best possible job for you, there are some prima donnas out there waiting to take advantage of your naiveté.

I think a (potential) tenant might have a prima facie case for racial discrimniation (not sure why someone hasn't sued the insurance companies for this) based solely on the lower scores often handed to minorities.I personally would never do it.all cash

The lease stands and you should negotiate with the distressed seller prima facie. 

I never had sellers fill them out, because an error - even an unintentional error - is prima facie evidence for a lawsuit. 

At the first step, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of discrimination."

. §559.211, subd. 2 to provide that, subject to other statutory provisions that create a prima facie presumption that a statutory cancellation has been effectuated,33 the injunction statute itself does not bar a court from determining the validity, effectiveness, or consequences of a statutory cancellation under either §559.21 or §559.217, or granting other relief in connection therewith, despite the fact that the purchaser did not seek or obtain relief under the injunction statute prior to the end of the notice period.

Furthermore, I would assume the latter is a prima facie violation of being an esteemed Moderator ??

If the property cannot be insured due to the non-conforming bedrooms, it could well be argued that this is prima facie evidence of a habitability issue and you could terminate the lease(s) needed.  

Having found recreational use to be 'residential' and thus that the land lease cottages were in fact "rental units" (which definition included "rented residential premises"), the RTA prima facie applied [RTA s.3(1)].The court then continued to consider whether the premises came under the exemption provisions of s.5(a).