Insurance Business forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Insurance Business | 29 Apr 2016, 11:00 a.m. Agree 0
Pricing, underwriting criteria and claims handling will be under review after a court decision leaves landlords liable for accidental damage their tenants cause, whether they’re insured or not.
  • Boomer | 29 Apr 2016, 11:43 a.m. Agree 0
    Who in their right mind would rent to a family with small children, Pets, Teenagers, Students ... the list goes on. Surely a law change is urgently required.
  • Common Sense | 29 Apr 2016, 12:00 p.m. Agree 0
    Non sensical to say the least.

    Would not a tenant’s extension and waiver of subrogation be the simplest solution? This is how I've experienced the underwriting in other geographies?
  • Chris | 29 Apr 2016, 12:08 p.m. Agree 0
    The law change occurred in 2010 when the PLA was drafted. There was a lack of clarity in the way the interaction between the RTA and the PLA were drafted but the District Court, High Court, and now the Court of Appeal have all found that Parliament intended residential tenants to be included in the protections in S269 of the PLA.

    Can Seamus explain how this is not a problem for commercial tenancies where leases are for longer periods that in the residential context, so there is more difficulty in proving the cause of the damage?

    What this really affects is insurer's ability to make subrogated recoveries against uninsured (and often uninsurable) tenants. This floodgates panic seems to be rife and if it leads to Parliament spending time on a narrow issue which the Courts have and will deal with, rather than other much needed law reform it will be a waste.
  • JP | 15 Jun 2016, 10:16 p.m. Agree 0
    I accept commercial tenants have immunity and only because they are the ones paying the landlord's insurance premium. Perhaps residential tenants should start paying their landlord's insurance premium?
  • Lesley | 23 Jun 2016, 01:29 p.m. Agree 0
    It always makes sense for commercial tenants as they pay the landlord's insurance and before it was double dipping. They paid this and then the landlord came after them for excess and payment for the landlord's property. However, the same rule for domestic tenants works as long as the landlord charges them for the rental property and the landlord checks the tenant has contents insurance in case of liability claims.
  • | 26 Nov 2016, 05:31 p.m. Agree 0
    I had tenants trash my house in there last three weeks went to tribunal and have to prove it was intentional or I pay
    They claim everything was and accident and because I was not there I have no proof. $3000 out of pocket and tenants walk away laughing with bond in hand.
Post a reply