The only reason I could see holding a tenant responsible for damage to caulking would be something like if a pet or a child actually chewed it up/ pulled it apart or the tenant left a window open for several weeks and there was water damage, something negligent like that.

Call your insurance company again and tell them your place is falling apart due to HOA negligence.

From what I've been told, if you are negligent you can be held personally responsible and an LLC isn't really going to save you.

I checked the law says landlord is responsible for pest control to keep the house livable.But our house has no pest problem before and not sure if this is due to their own negligence or our house.

(Not giving legal advice I'm an insurance agent not an attorney) If you are sued and they allege negligence on your part they can pierce the LLC protection anyway is my understanding but you have to ask your attorney about that part.My bigger worry is in a claim situation with you having a policy in your personal name but the legal ownership in an LLC is the potential for the claim to be denied (at first) for not having insurable interest - you could fight thru to show you are the owner of the LLC thus the property owner and have an "insurable interest" entitling you to coverage BUT... do you really want to jump thru those hoops if the house burns down?

The seller completed their portion of the contract and barring any negligence or fraud, you own this broken AC.  

Long story but b/c of the down payment and the fact that he's paying tax on the payments either way, the difference is negligible in this case.

There are so many fringe benefits that go along with owning and operating your own business, you can't leverage/sell a umbrella policy; additionally, and imho, the explicit intent of the insurance company is to not payout; so, if they discover malicious negligence then the policy is void anyway.If you run your business, LLC or otherwise, correctly you will not have anything to worry about and will have flow through deductions, access to twice as much capital etc... 

Also the typical home inspection contract used in MD limits an inspectors liability to the cost of the imspection...and.to make a claim you need to demonstrate gross negligence in the inspection which is not the case here.No the name missing would likely.not do any good.

They do not want regulators telling them under audit down the road " You saw the warning signs but continued to lend at these rates and terms so you are negligent and liable."