As a landlord you have a responsibility to indemnify the property manager when they are sued in lieu of or along with you under the contract, so in a case like a frivolous tenant suing for a slip and fall without negligence, you want that insurance defending you both or you’re going to be in the hook for the PM’s attorney fees. 

Now you have just armed someone who has no qualms about taking innocent lives because you negligently carried a weapon you had no intentions of ever using.

Therefore requiring your tenant's to have renter's insurance gives you another layer of protection, and another avenue pursue in the event the tenants causes damage or negligence.  

At the end of the day it seemed the previous plumbing issues were not caused by tenant negligence but by a decrepit system.

The difference in interest rates is negligible.

I'm pretty sure the landlord insurance wouldn't pay because they always try to play that card (landlord was negligent).I have replaced my deck for my own residence 2 weeks ago, It was in a bad shape but the structure is solid.

I also believe that the behavior Julie describes (ie what this thread question involves), ie: collusion between the buy/sell side, and/or practiced solely by the buy OR sale side, is perfectly rational when the risk of getting caught/reputational risk is judged to be negligible.

Even if not in the lease, many states have tenant/landlord laws that hold the tenant responsible if the condition was caused by a deliberate or negligent act of the tenant.As always, seek professional legal advice.

In your case, if your tenant had warned you 3 times that the branch in question looked precarious, he / she might have a case, but I (like one poster) am clear at lease signing that tenants must have renter's insurance, and that we are not responsible for damage EVEN IF THE DAMAGE is caused by a defect in our building or grounds, unless we are negligent.

That’s the one thing they can control to get out of buying the house.No other reason on the application except no cash.... which implies negligence of bad faith since they were stringing me along with no funds to back their contract.... they should never have went under contract unless they had funds.