by Guest » Fri Sep 09, 2011 05:30 am
I have a house in California but I don’t stay there. I’m planning to rent it out. I’m just concerned about anything that happens there, or someone gets hurt on my property, would I be responsible for that? Since I don’t stay there would all the liability still be mine? If so what should I do?
Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 07:34 am Post Subject:
If you are renting out your house, you can consider buying a Renters insurance policy, to safeguard your rented property.
However you can’t be held liable for all the activity and happenings on your property, just because you are the landlord.
In that case, your tenant would have to get some liability insurance on his Tenants insurance policy.
Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:35 pm Post Subject:
[quoteHowever you can’t be held liable for all the activity and happenings on your property, just because you are the landlord.[/quote]
You can and probably will be held responsible. In some cases you might be responsible in most, probably not. The key is that someone will still _try_ to hold you responsible. That is, someone can file suit against you.
But the real exposure is that you still have liability for any issues/problems with your property that result in a a loss to someone. For example, upkeep and maintenance. If there is some type of defect in the property resulting in a loss then you can be liable.
Again, the problem is that someone will probably hold the property owner liable even if it's not the fault of the property owner. I'm walking on the front lawn and fall. Well, I blame the property owner because.... the land was uneven. You get the idea.
Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 05:31 pm Post Subject:
First of all, tcope nailed it:
You can and probably will be held responsible. In some cases you might be responsible in most, probably not. The key is that someone will still _try_ to hold you responsible. That is, someone can file suit against you.
The issue isn't whether the landlord WOULD be held liable for action, there are many possibilities where the landlord wouldn't be considered negligent. But remember, even if you're innocent (so to speak), you still have to pay for your defense costs. The policy coverage will pay for those costs if their insured is sued for negligence. No policy in force means the owner has to pay for his defense costs out of pocket. Not good, either.
Secondly, to Mona... this in particular:
If you are renting out your house, you can consider buying a Renters insurance policy, to safeguard your rented property.
I have no idea what this means... maybe your brain and fingers didn't meet in the middle here. Trust me, I know how THAT works.
The OP stated that he was renting out a house that HE OWNS in California and was concerned about the liability issues, which have been accurately addressed by tcope.
Renter's insurance (HO-4 Tenant Homeowner) protects the RENTER, not the OWNER of the property, unless (for liability purposes) named as an additional insured or loss payee on the policy. This is going to provide protection to whomever RENTS the house from the OP for their personal property, liability and a number of other things.
The LANDLORD, if NOT living in the dwelling, is limited in terms of available coverage to protect the HOUSE and HIS liability that may be associated with renting it out to others. The landlord needs to place a Fire Dwelling policy on the home and also needs to make sure that his insurance agent is familiar with the exposure presented by this type of risk. A homeowner's policy cannot be placed on the home- HO policies are required to be owner-occupied in just about every instance.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 07:34 pm Post Subject: Makayla He rnandez
Hey folks, Will be the U.S. considerably much better off sticking to Syria's Assad?
Add your comment