Great post, Anthony!

I own a 26 unit, 3-story apartment complex in a college town (we're 100% capacity, 100% of the time).

Over this past Thanksgiving weekend when nearly every tenant was out of town (back home with their parents, etc.), a cut-off valve gave way in a 3^rd story kitchen that had been renovated 5 months earlier.  As you can imagine, there was A LOT of water coming out for an unspecified length of time.  Fortunately, firewalls vertically separate the units so only 3 units were affected.  What's even more fortunate is that none of the tenants' possessions were damaged (except clothes in some of the closets were saturated). 

The insurance company has begun their investigation and has already concluded that this was a "freak" incident and there was no negligence on the part of the landlord or tenant.  They are currently investigating the issue further.  Total bill for the damage: $30,000....

Of course, none the 6 tenants involved had renters insurance even after it was noted in their application and lease (2x) that they should get it.  Anger set in when they realized that they were on their own and the landlord was only going to abate their rent was not going to pay for alternative lodging or the removal/replacement of their possessions before/after renovations.  This will probably be one of the greatest "life lessons' these students will learn while in college.

Needless to say, we now have a new policy that makes it abundantly clear the risks any tenant will take if they decide not to get renter's insurance.  This article will sure help in this endeavor.

Thanks!

Phil Victor

Wow, Phil, sounds like a real mess.  Of course a landlord can urge his tenants to obtain renter's insurance, but how likely are they to listen?  Most times, not.  It's cases like this where it's the obvious choice would have been renter's insurance.  Unfortunately, most of us are similiar in that it takes a catastrophe to see clearly.  Preventative damage is far more lucrative though.