Landlord forcing me to buy tenant insurance

[russ6970]

I asked her to produce any reference to any similar clause that explicitly states the requirement of adding the Landlord. I am curiously awaiting her reply on that.

"Residential Tenancies Act as of April 30, 2018:
The tenant must have liability insurance at all times. If the landlord asks for proof of coverage, the tenant must provide it. It is up to the tenant to get contents insurance if they want it."

The part in bold says to me that there is no requirement for the landlords name to be on it, as if their name was on it, they would know about the insurance in the first place.

 

[mcgyver]

"Residential Tenancies Act as of April 30, 2018:
The tenant must have liability insurance at all times. If the landlord asks for proof of coverage, the tenant must provide it. It is up to the tenant to get contents insurance if they want it."

The part in bold says to me that there is no requirement for the landlords name to be on it, as if their name was on it, they would know about the insurance in the first place.

You have got a point there. I am still waiting for her reply. I will post an update here once she replies.

 

[vensak]

So your landlord is pulling your leg. In reality there is no such imposed law.

The only imposed part is for new leases starting from April. However those that have still and old contract do keep it (as there is no requirement to change it).
And as for those new leases, there is a standardized template, but landlord has again options:


11. Tenant’s Insurance


Select one:


There are no tenant insurance requirements.


or


The tenant must have liability insurance at all times. If the landlord asks for proof of coverage, the tenant must provide it. It is up to the tenant to get contents insurance if they want it.
http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/FormDetail?OpenForm&ACT=RDR&TAB=PROFILE&SRCH=&ENV=WWE&TIT=2229E&NO=047-2229E
So simply said your landlord is trying to be smart and maybe get rid of you.

 

[mcgyver]

Oh, vensak, I am flabbergasted!. Really, I am. Thanks for the information! All along, I thought she quoted from the Residential Tenancy Act itself! But in reality, she just selectively quoted from the new standard form, in her favor!

I copied text from the original form, thanks to you, and sent her an email.

The tone of the email is that "I am aware of what just happened"....

But, vensak, there is one line in my old contract that goes, "tenant should be able to show tenancy insurance if the landlord asks for it..."

So, eventually, I will have to get the insurance, but, it is good to let her know that I understood what she tried to do.

 

[mcgyver]

She replied to my original email about the requirement of adding them under my insurance policy, saying, "I would suggest you to talk to your insurance provider as they are subject matter experts..."

So, I contacted my insurance company and they said, "No, the landlord cannot ask you to do that...."

So, I do NOT have to include the landlord under my coverage. Matter is closed!

 

[russ6970]

Certainly sounds like she is trying to pull a fast one for some reason or another.

 

[vensak]

Oh, vensak, I am flabbergasted!. Really, I am. Thanks for the information! All along, I thought she quoted from the Residential Tenancy Act itself! But in reality, she just selectively quoted from the new standard form, in her favor!

I copied text from the original form, thanks to you, and sent her an email.

The tone of the email is that "I am aware of what just happened"....

But, vensak, there is one line in my old contract that goes, "tenant should be able to show tenancy insurance if the landlord asks for it..."

So, eventually, I will have to get the insurance, but, it is good to let her know that I understood what she tried to do.

She can choose to require it, but she cannot tell you that it is because of new law. It was her personal choice to ask it. In addition you already have an old contract which should be still valid. So the new standardized form is only obligatory for new contracts.

The problem I see there is not that she does not have right to request an insurance as such (but of course not to be part of it) but the way she presented facts in her favour.

Good luck.

 

[drasticinput]

Asking to be listed as an entity in your renter's insurance defies the whole premise of insurance.

Tenant Insurance: broadly provides protection to home contents (moveable items) and third party liability (common coverage in both tenant and owner's insurance). Tenant's insurance normally does not cover the structure - however, depending on your individual policy, may have a sub-limit for structural damage. This policy is designed for the resident occupying the unit.

The home contents policy insures the policy holder - the tenant occupying the unit. Therefore, you are required to fulfil your obligation of having tenants' insurance. You are not required to list him as an entity.

Homeowners' Insurance: covers the homeowner against any damage to the structure. If the home owner is residing in the unit, they can opt for content+structure. However, if the landlord is not staying at the unit, i.e., none of the moveable items are owned by him, it is pointless for him to have this addition to the policy (because in case of a claim, he cannot be compensated for losing an item he does not own). To safeguard his interest, he can choose an optional rider called 'loss of rent' which will cover his rent in case the house was rendered uninhabitable due to human or natural factors (but he pays for that rider and not you, as it covers his interest and not yours).

In essence, expecting to be listed as an occupant and yet asking you to have another policy for you, is redundant for your landlord.

 

[mgnlky]

Not 100% sure how it works in Canada, but in the USA if the landlord was on the property insurance (for the dwelling) AND the renters/tenants insurance policy, they could very well be overinsured which is a huge problem should a claim be made. I would think Canada would have the same parameters around double-insuring things to prevent the same issues.

That being said, I know in BC landlords can require you to have tenants insurance in the lease. This protects them in the event something happens to the unit and the tenant's items are destroying, since the tenant can make a claim on the insurance policy rather than potentially sue the landlord.

 

[mcgyver]

Thanks for everyone's comments. It settled down to I buying only tenant insurance which also covers public liability. I am happy because, combined with my auto insurance, the overall bundle went down from $328 (auto) to $322 (auto + home) only.

 

[russ6970]

Result!

 

[parttimebasement]

Thanks for everyone's comments. It settled down to I buying only tenant insurance which also covers public liability. I am happy because, combined with my auto insurance, the overall bundle went down from $328 (auto) to $322 (auto + home) only.

At last you won.
Hate it when people like your landlord take advantage of immigrants.
And kudos to you for keeping calm and educating yourself rather than just letting others hump you.

 

[AndreaLauren]

Hiya, I've been dealing with the same issue, (I am the landlord) and I think what your landlord was referring to is to be added as an additional interest party, NOT a recipient. This will tell them if the policy lapses, or cancelled..etc.. and if having tenant insurance is a requirement for leasing their property, they need to know you really have it.

This leads us to the question, WHY do landlords want tenants to have renter's insurance....
In my research, one reason that hasn't been mentioned, (and to me, its THE reason landlords want tenants to have renters insurance), is because if you ever have to find alternative lodgings due to a fire, flood, or even a simple repair that might require a few days away, your landlord is legally obligated to prorate your rent, which they can insure against. What they can't insure against is if the alternative accommodations are more then what you would have paid for rent, the landlord would have to pay for this out of their own pocket and this could add up quickly. As a landlord, this might bankrupt me b/c I'm not a rich corporation, just an average person, and I'm probably poorer then all my tenants. Anyway, this would also make finding alternative lodgings that your landlord "approves" of very difficult. You might end up miles away from your home, or the accommodations are just ...well..... "yucky".Your tenant insurance would cover this, plus you could pick a nicer place closer to your home! I wish landlord insurance policies would cover this, but they don't seem to. Or at least I haven't found any. I think they offer rent loss OR alternative lodgings coverage, NOT both.
So weird.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Hiya, I've been dealing with the same issue, (I am the landlord) and I think what your landlord was referring to is to be added as an additional interest party, NOT a recipient. This will tell them if the policy lapses, or cancelled..etc.. and if having tenant insurance is a requirement for leasing their property, they need to know you really have it.

This leads us to the question, WHY do landlords want tenants to have renter's insurance....
In my research, one reason that hasn't been mentioned, (and to me, its THE reason landlords want tenants to have renters insurance), is because if you ever have to find alternative lodgings due to a fire, flood, or even a simple repair that might require a few days away, your landlord is legally obligated to prorate your rent, which they can insure against. What they can't insure against is if the alternative accommodations are more then what you would have paid for rent, the landlord would have to pay for this out of their own pocket and this could add up quickly. As a landlord, this might bankrupt me b/c I'm not a rich corporation, just an average person, and I'm probably poorer then all my tenants. Anyway, this would also make finding alternative lodgings that your landlord "approves" of very difficult. You might end up miles away from your home, or the accommodations are just ...well..... "yucky".Your tenant insurance would cover this, plus you could pick a nicer place closer to your home! I wish landlord insurance policies would cover this, but they don't seem to. Or at least I haven't found any. I think they offer rent loss OR alternative lodgings coverage, NOT both.
So weird.

Where are you that landlords are made to pay for alternative accommodations? In BC, it is the responsibility of tenants, not landlords.

 

[canuck78]

Ontario as well.