Renter's Insurance

7 Replies

If you have a duplex and occupying one side and renting the other, should you require the tenant to carry renters insurance?

Absolutely. There are two separate, distinct units, and the renters should have coverage to protect their personal belongings should something happen to the building.

I don't require renters insurance. If they want to lose all of their stuff in the event of some catastrophe, that's on them. Personally, I would keep renters insurance if I was renting, but I can't justify forcing someone else to cover their own belongings as long as they realize that it's not my responsibility either.

Originally posted by @Daniel Mohnkern :

I don't require renters insurance. If they want to lose all of their stuff in the event of some catastrophe, that's on them. Personally, I would keep renters insurance if I was renting, but I can't justify forcing someone else to cover their own belongings as long as they realize that it's not my responsibility either.

 I fully agree with your stance on the matter if someone wants to have their merchandise stolen or destroyed with no recourse that is certainly their right, However I believe renters insurance in this case is more a matter of protecting the property from damage or liability and the cost should be incurred by the renter.. I personally will not rent/lease anything without a home warranty and renters insurance I of course pay for the home warranty ..... I just recently had about 6-8k in repairs done to an upstairs A/C that only cost a $60 trip fee thanks to $495 home warranty 

This post inspired me to read other posts concerning why people might require renters insurance. After having read some of their reasoning, I could see why someone might require it in the event of using that protection for liability reasons. As many people are, I suppose, I was unaware that renters insurance covered instances of renters neglect or abuse of my property. Having learned that, my opinion may change. I'm going to have to do more studying on this.

I have 3 reasons for requiring renter's insurance:

1. If their friend breaks their head open at a party, it's on their insurance rather than mine

2. If they completely destroy the property (I've seen that happen to a military landlord) then I might be able to do my $40k rehab through their insurance

3. Their belongings are covered if they're broken into (least of my concerns)

For something that costs $5-$15/month, it's nothing to require it and it's one more layer of asset protection for you. I would wonder why any owner would NOT require renter's insurance.

Originally posted by @Bryan O. :

I have 3 reasons for requiring renter's insurance:

1. If their friend breaks their head open at a party, it's on their insurance rather than mine

2. If they completely destroy the property (I've seen that happen to a military landlord) then I might be able to do my $40k rehab through their insurance

3. Their belongings are covered if they're broken into (least of my concerns)

For something that costs $5-$15/month, it's nothing to require it and it's one more layer of asset protection for you. I would wonder why any owner would NOT require renter's insurance.

 Agree with all of the above.  Beyond that, for all of our properties where we carry a landlord policy, the insurance company requires that our leases have terms mandating tenants have renters insurance.  That said, there's no validation of it (eg; we don't require proof of renters insurance, and our insurance company doesn't require any proof from us/our tenants), but the clause is there in the lease should it ever come up.

Join the Largest Real Estate Investing Community

Basic membership is free, forever.

By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.