BiggerPockets

No such thing. Get a deposit; that's your insurance.

Then screen carefully so you don't rent to destructive deadbeats.

You can get vandalism coverage, but my experience is that the insurance company always has a good reason that they don't have to pay vandalism claims. They do not consider deliberate tenant damage to be vandalism.

Hmmm, must not have liked P NW's truthful response. Check with Smith & Wesson Inc. another is Remington and check for Glauk, it's a german company, but they all provide protection plans or systems that might help you, if wisely employed.

Otherwise, it's a risk that is accepted in the business.

@Katherine...Seems like a Fair Housing suit waiting to happen to me!

I have never heard of vandalism insurance. If you find some please let us know about it.

@ Brian we are lucky and have not had to list the house in many many many many years. The last 3 tenants were officers and when they decided to move out before we even knew they wanted to move out one of there buddies would call and ask about renting it before it was even listed. We just got lucky with that. The tenant before the officers was a teacher, she was wonderful. This is where his thinking comes from. We would never not show the house or rent it just because of a profession. Unless of course the profession was illegal.

I was speaking about "vandalism" (not sure if that is the right term from an insurance perspective) from the TENANTS that occupy the property. Admittedly I haven't read this part of my policy and I am not aware of a separate policy for this. As has been stated it seems to be covered in SOME policies and can be purchased as a rider in SOME policies. I certainly wouldn't rely on it being covered in ALL policies and I would look at what the rules are for coverage.

Admittedly, I am not a Fair Housing expert. However, there is often a lack of understanding of what other posters write because people have personal agendas on forums. Check the laws in your area. This link may prove helpful in deciding whether or not it is okay to discriminate on the basis of occupation:

Discriminate?

//Quote
In SOME (emphasis mine) places, a landlord may even refuse to rent to certain people because of their occupation.
//End Quote

Even if you have standard policies in place it doesn't stop some Fair Housing nutcase from saying you are really discriminating on some other basis. Be careful…

generally a basic insurance policy(HO1, DP1) covers wind damage,fire damage, and vandalism.

if tenants cause fire, the same if they vandalize? i would say yes.

P NW, Govt financing and Sec 8 include such provisions, but spinning that to a certain target market with a justification is not really excluding a particular source of income, IMO. Such regs are usually tageted to those who receive food stamps, disability payments or other social income sources since doing so would basically exclude those receiving entitlements. If you were to say I only rent to police officers or law enforcement officers (LEOs) and thier families, is not excluding any other source of income. Let's say someone who works for a utility company complains, my answer would be that if there is a family who includes an LEO and has a member who works at the utility company is not a problem, I would accept the income toward rent qualifications and rent to them subject to other reasonable qualifications, like credit.

There are exclusions or specific tenant requirements that have been excluded from some govt. financing as well, such as senior living condos, fraternal organizations, religious organizations and civic organizations, where properties were only available to certain groups. The Lions Club makes housing available for blind tenants, Habitat for Humanity provides housing only for certain low income (Christian) tenants to advance to homeownership, and in some over crowded college towns, a fraternity may own housing and rent only to member students. Teachers or Educators and LEOs only? No problem. These two categories could easily be spun into providing a public service for lower income public servants, IMO.