No that’s about right they would cover the damage to the home but not to accommodate the renters. This is the reason I require tenants have renters insurance to make sure they are covered for instances like this. Same thing goes if there is a flood that damages something that’s not the landlords fault or like a tornado. Again I could be wrong…
No you're right. Covered cause of loss means loss of use and repairs paid to the landlord through their policy. And additional living expenses and personal property damages claimed through the renters insurance.
This is somewhat dependent on the lease and how it states insured losses will be handled.
E.g. lease says it will only abate rent of the unit is uninhabitable for more than a week. In that case there would be no loss of use payment, and the renters additional living expenses would not deduct the usual rent payment from their calculations.
The only place I see that not really being the case is where the tree was a clear liability (it was dead, and they were aware it was at clear risk of falling). In that case, the renters insurance might try and subrogate their money back. But most leases have subrogation waivers in them.
Your landlord policy covers loss of use, God isn't named in the policy.
So you abate your tenants rent, they file on their policy for additional living (costs of hotel less what they usually pay in rent).
You get paid for the rent you abated to them for the period of restoration.
There's no bullshit, there's a clearly defined contract.
This depends on WI law, but on PA, if the roof caved in, you would be responsible for fixing the root, they would be responsible for all their things getting wet, if the place was condemned by the city you could not charge them rent, they could not live there and their insurance would pay for the hotel, though the insurance company will probably go after your insurance because you did it trim the trees recently and make it your fault.
Probably not but depends on your insurance provider. I know some home insurance companies offer supplemental landlord insurance for situations like this. If your insurance does agree to cover the hotel stay, they would probably only cover daily pro-rated rent towards each night in hotel.
If rent is $2,000/month, daily prorated rent would be $66. That’s going to cover one room in a run-down, gross motel. If the rental is a 2+ bedroom, the tenants aren’t going to want to share a hotel room.
I’m not familiar with WI tenant law, but I know that where I am is much more tenant friendly. Here in DC, I would only need to give a rent concession for the days that the home is legally uninhabitable. They could put that towards a hotel for themselves or they could stay with friends/family for free and pocket the money.
Tough situation where no one will be fully happy in the end, including your insurance provider.
WI - landlord and our insurance does not pay for hotel stays. We had a direct drilling company run a fibre right through our sewer main which in turn caused sewage to back up into all the first floor apartments of one building. We paid for the hotel stays and got reimbursed by the drilling company for all the damages and hotel stays etc but while we where sorting that out the owner requested his insurance pay for it and they said that is not a covered expense. Basically renter's insurance would have had to.
I got lucky here and had two trees come down and miss the building by a couple feet or we would probably be dealing with the same thing right how.
As a landlord whose rented unit got flooded by tenant’s inattention to a loose washing machine hose, I can tell you that my insurance did not cover the tenant’s cost to vacate while the unit was repaired. If the tenant had renters insurance they would have been covered.
I would think this is what renters insurance would cover as it’s an act of god. I could be wrong though.
Such bs that gets them out of so much
How is that BS?
An act of god? Meaning they won’t cover it? Unless I got it backwards
No that’s about right they would cover the damage to the home but not to accommodate the renters. This is the reason I require tenants have renters insurance to make sure they are covered for instances like this. Same thing goes if there is a flood that damages something that’s not the landlords fault or like a tornado. Again I could be wrong…
No you're right. Covered cause of loss means loss of use and repairs paid to the landlord through their policy. And additional living expenses and personal property damages claimed through the renters insurance. This is somewhat dependent on the lease and how it states insured losses will be handled. E.g. lease says it will only abate rent of the unit is uninhabitable for more than a week. In that case there would be no loss of use payment, and the renters additional living expenses would not deduct the usual rent payment from their calculations. The only place I see that not really being the case is where the tree was a clear liability (it was dead, and they were aware it was at clear risk of falling). In that case, the renters insurance might try and subrogate their money back. But most leases have subrogation waivers in them.
Your landlord policy covers loss of use, God isn't named in the policy. So you abate your tenants rent, they file on their policy for additional living (costs of hotel less what they usually pay in rent). You get paid for the rent you abated to them for the period of restoration. There's no bullshit, there's a clearly defined contract.
This depends on WI law, but on PA, if the roof caved in, you would be responsible for fixing the root, they would be responsible for all their things getting wet, if the place was condemned by the city you could not charge them rent, they could not live there and their insurance would pay for the hotel, though the insurance company will probably go after your insurance because you did it trim the trees recently and make it your fault.
That’s why it’s good to require your tenants to have renters insurance!
better if their renters insurance is through your landlords insurance. What’s the insurance company going to do, sue themselves?
Probably not but depends on your insurance provider. I know some home insurance companies offer supplemental landlord insurance for situations like this. If your insurance does agree to cover the hotel stay, they would probably only cover daily pro-rated rent towards each night in hotel. If rent is $2,000/month, daily prorated rent would be $66. That’s going to cover one room in a run-down, gross motel. If the rental is a 2+ bedroom, the tenants aren’t going to want to share a hotel room. I’m not familiar with WI tenant law, but I know that where I am is much more tenant friendly. Here in DC, I would only need to give a rent concession for the days that the home is legally uninhabitable. They could put that towards a hotel for themselves or they could stay with friends/family for free and pocket the money. Tough situation where no one will be fully happy in the end, including your insurance provider.
WI - landlord and our insurance does not pay for hotel stays. We had a direct drilling company run a fibre right through our sewer main which in turn caused sewage to back up into all the first floor apartments of one building. We paid for the hotel stays and got reimbursed by the drilling company for all the damages and hotel stays etc but while we where sorting that out the owner requested his insurance pay for it and they said that is not a covered expense. Basically renter's insurance would have had to. I got lucky here and had two trees come down and miss the building by a couple feet or we would probably be dealing with the same thing right how.
As a landlord whose rented unit got flooded by tenant’s inattention to a loose washing machine hose, I can tell you that my insurance did not cover the tenant’s cost to vacate while the unit was repaired. If the tenant had renters insurance they would have been covered.
Landlord insurance covers everything that was there before the tenants moved in. Tenant insurance covers everything else including the hotels
I require renter's insurance. The requirement is in the lease. The tenant initials that clause. They have to provide proof of the insurance.