Renter's Insurance - Effect on Me

[Matthew Olszak]

I read another thread stating that the landlord really can't be listed as additional insured on a renter's insurance policy for because they have no real loss to claim (in more insurance-esq terms).

Do I then have any incentive to obligate my tenants to purchasing a renter's insurance policy? Will it cover me or my property in any way as to prevent a loss claim against me or my insurance company?

My thought was to allow a discount of $x/month as long as the tenant has insurance, with rent minus x being the true rent I want. But if there is no benefit to me, I'll just advertise at rent minus x w/o the insurance rule.

In case it matters, this is an owner-occupied building.

[Bryan O.]

You don't want Additional Insured on the renter's policy. You want Additional Interest. This gives you the notices of the policy, but causes no problem in case of a claim. I mandate this for my tenants.

Their policy will cover things they cause: fire from stove error, water damage from leaving tub on, suit because their drunk friend fell and broke his head on the toilet, etc. Plus, they get to know their belongings are covered if a pipe bursts and the place floods (your insurance for the pipe, theirs for their belongings and the hotel while it's fixed) or if they are robbed.

As a landlord, there is no con to requiring this policy. As a tenant, it is $5-$15/month, which is not a problem. If it is, they're not a good choice.