When Should Landlords Require Renter’s Insurance? Part 1
Many landlords worry about scaring away tenants resulting in longer vacancies if they require renter’s insurance – but not requiring it could cost even more.
The initial reaction of many landlords to the subject of renter’s insurance is, “my property is insured, so why should I care?”
On the surface this response seems obvious and leaves nothing further to discuss.
As experienced and professional property managers, we strongly disagree. There are many situations where you can, “win the battle, but lose the war” if you’re shortsighted. Let’s examine several potential situations where requiring renter’s insurance could actually save landlords money in the long run.
Dog Bites
If you accept dog at your rental properties you run the risk of that dog biting someone and you getting sued. Why you? Because this is America and the person with the money always gets sued! Theoretically, the dog could even bite an invited visitor inside the property and you could be sued. Even if you win the case, how much would you spend in legal fees defending yourself?
Wouldn’t it be cheaper to require tenants with dogs to obtain renter’s insurance with at least $100,000 liability coverage for dog bites and name you as additionally insured?