Bichon Frise wrote:Just b/c something is "cheap", doesn't mean you should buy it. I've never signed a lease stipulating renter's insurance. It is only for the contents, so I have no idea why an owner would want you to have it.
You can breach a contract anytime you wish, and yes you can be sued. But, that doesn't mean you will. Please tell me the damages an owner would have b/c their tenant does not carry renter's insurance?
Perhaps there is a good reason, like their brother in law sells it. But since renter's insurance is good for the tenants' contents only, I'm having a hard time coming up with a reason.
I also wondered about that comment...about a lease requiring renter's insurance. I'm not sure I even understand how that would be legal. A landlord can put whatever they want in a lease but that does not make it legal or enforceable. But even if it is legal and enforceable, they would have to sue you and show actual damages. Unless they demanded to be listed as a "named insured," they would not have a way to even have damages because they would never be entitled to any coverage even if something happened.
Renter's insurance covers damage to the renter's property only so it is hard to see how the landlord has anything to gain or any standing to require it. I guess some landlords would want a renter to have it so that if something happens they don't come after the landlord. But that is probably just ignorance because if the landlord is at fault, they are at fault. The insurance company will just come after them with bigger guns.