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 | 11 May 2015, 07:30 AM Agree 0
Producers who don’t adjust their clients’ renters policy to reflect this change may end up regretting it, says an NYC agent.
  • Barbara Pinaire | 21 Mar 2014, 10:07 AM Agree 0
    That is very good to know. The house next door to us burned last week and the renters are just going to go find another house. However, in a specific market like the writer's parents; where you want to stay in the area or building...then you definitely need to know this is covered properly. Also, the housefire next door was caused by a cigarette on the deck. Legal liability to the renter?
  • James Sweeney | 04 May 2014, 06:27 PM Agree 0
    This loss of use advice is off base. Loss of use coverage doesn't need to cover anyone "to survive for 12 months." The loss of use needs to cover temporary housing. If an apartment is uninhabitable then you have the rent money you aren't paying for your uninhabitable apartment to pay for a new apartment. It wouldn't need to be covered by loss of use. Also, an apartment truly down for 12 months would trigget a cancellation of the lease and you'd simply go rent elsewhere. One doesn't need to overpay for insurance coverage for that. An exception might be a rent controlled apartment but that was not mentioned nor is that even relevant to 99% of renters.This advice is more on point for a property owner, rather than a renter.
  • Lori Herrington | 04 Aug 2014, 12:28 PM Agree 0
    Have to say I am leaning towards agreement with James Sweeney. If a renter has 20,000 in contents coverage than they would have $4,000.00 loss of use. Again to state the obvious they would have this money to secure another rental or temporary housing - the amount of money they allocate for rent could be used for motels or another rental as their ability to pay for their rent wouldn't be affected by the event at the subsequent property causing them to need to use the loss of use. Am I missing something? (I do understand they would have the incidental costs involved with moving, etc. but to move 15,000 in contents.....$4,000 seems sufficient for moving, storage, deposits, etc.)
  • David Muench | 03 Mar 2015, 07:59 AM Agree 0
    It is very relevant and even more so when dealing with small apartments with high rental costs, especially in a larger city (NY, Chicago, Atlanta, LA) where a small apartment could cost $1500, $2000, $2500/month. Or renting a full house or even a furnished house. Don't think that being displaced is an inexpensive endeavor. After a fire, water damage, smoke damage, vandalism or other covered loss leaves a person or family without a home, where do you go? The local shelter? Red Cross? With proper coverage it is better. A hotel could cost $100-$300 per night. On the low side you are looking at $3000/month, higher side $9000/month. Even a week or two will exhaust a benefit of $3,000 and put a big dent in $4,000 or $5,000. That is probably a bit higher than anyone's monthly rent. Add to that the additional expense of commuting to work, additional food costs(no kitchen to cook). A homeowner's policy generally covers loss of use on a 12-month actual loss sustained valuation, whereas an HO-4 (apartment) or HO-6 (condo) tie the amount to a percentage of the contents. Lower contents = lower coverage amount. Two people, side by side in identically sized apartments could have drastically different coverage amounts based on the contents limit. It doesn't change the cost to rent the space. Bump up that limit! Thanks for the article.
  • Joe | 12 May 2015, 01:29 PM Agree 0
    I agree with all of you, but reality is that most of the renters are not getting renters policy because they want it. Approximately, over 70% of our existing renters policy holders were forced to purchase $100,000 liability coverage by their property managers. Rest of 25% or more were purchased by our recommendation to get multi-policy discount. In both cases, ALL policy holders requested minimum coverage and refused to increase the limit. Basically, $150 annual premium is unprofitable business and I have decided not to accept mono-line renters policy unless they increase the limits or insure with their auto policy.
Post a reply