Can someone tell me if I screwed up somewhere?
My tenant was apparently using a portable gas cooker connected to a large cylinder and the whole thing blew up and caused a fire. The main stove is an electric stove and I would have not thought this would be something that I would need to worry about.
I have landlord insurance and strata has purchased insurance. Neither are willing to help with the bill… Was I supposed to buy some other type of building insurance?
insce. cover
please stop making up your own abbreviations
oh, kay.
thxs.
He's not your pal, buddy.
It's also an industry wide abbreviation for incense, depends what industry you're in I guess so thank you for clarifying
Full stop unnecessary in abbreviations ending in the original 's last letter.
Using an abbreviation that is unknown outside the industry is not a good way to communicate to a general audience.
Individual abbreviations are so fetch.
Stop trying to make fetch happen
insect cover?
incest cover?
Insurance is made to cover stupidity.
You can ask your tenant to sue you for injury and your insurance company will pay your tenant out, then they can give the money to you.
So fraud then?
Only if there was no injury.
It didn't sound like there was…..
Plus not sure how the landlord was at fault for the tenant doing what they did.
@JimmyF: google told me you can sue someone if you get injured on their property. thought this applied in this case.
Yeah, sue the owner for not telling him that gas cylinder isn't allowed.
You have to sue the tenant as it was massive incompetence on their part at fault.
Can't realistically sue someone that doesn't have any money
You can sue and garnish their wages till the cost is paid off.
Providided it's ruled in the Landlords favour. Not a given it will be.
Yeah good luck on getting the garnish applied or if applied, enforced.
I love how people think this is so simple.
I sued an uninsured teenage driver. Garnished his bank account from time to time for the past 12 years. Would not recommend. I mainly continued my efforts out of spite - he was very rude after the crash in 2010.
wage - less living expense
I've seen people spending $$$$$$$$$ for legal expense and the outcome is $10/w repayment
Not getting his bond back I guess
What do you mean?
Mokr said "his" which is referring to a man, which I disagree.
Bond cant cover full damage
I wonder if this means the Landlord can access the existing Bond for repairs, and the tenant is required to 'top up'?
Never really thought about whether the bond could be used during the lease term for damage that occurs during the tenancy period (as opposed to solely at the end)
Yeah, I suspect the blame will fall onto the real estate agent, at least that's what the insurance company wants…
I didn't know the tenant was doing what he did… Freaking heck.
It's pretty hard to provide though. Estate agents don't check under all the sinks and ovens. Most are quick checks.
@paloverde88: Dude are you on crack? Complaining about soy sauce stains on a plate?
Exhaust fans get oily, that’s kinda what they are supposed to do.
Not cleaning properly is also a valid reason to withhold some/all of bond. But it seems like you need a reality check.
I’d be saying to the insurance company that the tenant could have set it up the day it happened. There’s no way in the world you can be to blame for a huge mistake by the tenant. Insurance should be paying out and they chase the tenant for the money owing.
Ask your real estate when the last time they inspected the place, if that cooker was there during the inspection you could sue the real estate.
Excuse me for being cynical.
Don't believe this would be covered by insurance. Not something they would pay out for. You'll need to chase the tenant for reparations. Time to lawyer up.
Is there really no insurance for this kind of thing? If a tenant is cooking their meats on a gas bottle and burns the whole house down, will insce. cover not buy you a new house?
The tenant could of taken out insurance to cover the money they are going to lose to the owner who is going to sue them.
Since the tenant is at fault, the insurance the owner has, has no reason or responsibility to pay out, as they only pay out in the event of the insured, ie the owner is at fault.
That seems crazy, you'd think when a tenant has possession of a house that the majority of circumstances where the house is destroyed is due to the tenant accidentally burning it down or trashing it on purpose. So if you own a house worth a million dollars and rent it out and the tenant leaves a stove on and burns it down, or doesn't clear the lint from the dryer, then the owner of the house is just out a million bucks?
@AustriaBargain: What you are talking about is an accident, what happened in the ops case is clearly a case of incompetency where the tenant is at fault, it was not an accident.
@garetz: So landlords have no financial protection if their tenants are arsonists and deliberately burn the house down? Doesn't sound right to me.
@AustriaBargain: No arson is not covered under accidental insurance an owner takes, that is a separate insurance you need to addon and pay extra for.
@AustriaBargain: I want to get an understanding behind this as well. Because half the time its "oh insurance doesn't cover this or that" like what do they cover then.
I imagine if I bought landlord insurance, it would protect me from stuff my tenant does. Otherwise why have it.
@trustnoone: The way people talk here makes it sound like you should have a lawyer on retainer to coach your tenant into saying the right things, because fi the fire was started because they were drying their knickers on the radiator, or were using a gas bottle stove in the kitchen, then it could make the difference between hundreds of thousands of dollars or not.
@trustnoone: there's a reason why i hate insurances, and never like to pay then a single cent.
Anyway to answer your question
Otherwise why have it.
Can tell from someone else's experience if a investor is taking a loan for property, generally its the lender who forces owner to fork out for insurance. Another hidden cost of taking home loan. Be aware, its not only the money you pay to bank, but money you have to pay for getting and keeping that home loan too.
@USER DC: But that's mortgage insurance - it insures the mortgage, not the property, and is indeed solely for the bank's benefit. It is very different from property insurance.
@derrida derider: Hi mate,
@USER DC is correct, most home loans (especially investment loans) with major banks require you to have home building insurance as a stipulation of the loan. This is to protect the lender incase your investment property goes up in smoke JUST LIKE THE OP!
This is separate to LMI.
@USER DC: That's mortgage insurance if ya loan to value is more than 80% and is to do with covering repayments of the home loan when it defaults nothing to do with home insurance
Waaay off
'The tenant could of taken out insurance…'
That doesn't make sense.
Please use the correct word, you should have used 'HAVE', not 'of'.
ie "The tenant could have taken out insurance …"
Plebs use 'of' instead of 'have', or is that something you accept you are?
could have*
Isn't this just like car insurance though? If someone runs up the back of my car, my insurance handles it and gets the money from the other persons insurance or from the person directly.
In this case the owner has had their property destroyed by someone else, owner has insurance, so the insurance will chase the person that caused the damage to the owners insured property, right?
This is a unit we're talking about. It would be a lot easier if they did burn down a house. Only 1 insurance company.involed
@CodeXD too late, it's already caught on!
Stop trying to make insce. a thing
But it's so fetch.
No, it won't, but insce. might make the place smell better.
Why would it not be covered by insurance?!?! Seems like a picture perfect insurance event to me…
Some landlords insurance includes contents and/or tenant damage insurance which is what I would expect this to fall under. Strata wouldn't cover it unless the structure of the building was damaged.
Could be OP's landlords insurance policy didn't include any of that. Just landlord risks like unpaid rent etc.
OP name checks out.
Keep the bond.
It's a gas, gas, gas.
How much damage?, are we talking $500, $5k, or $500k
Tenant better flee the country if its 500K+ 🤣🤣
There's a good chance they've already vanished, lol
$50k to $80k estimated from quotes.
It's not terrible I guess. Apparently there are no structural issues.
RIP. I hope you get your money back.
Have the insurance companies given you a reason why they wont cover it?
Also, was it a meth lab?, or something else illegal?
Asking the real question here
Looking on the bright side, at least your costs will be an extra tax deduction!
I think you needed "Home Insurance" or even "+ Contents". And not simply "Landlords Insurance". There's a reason why that last one is cheaper.
It's supposed to cover unpaid rent, and small amounts for damages and bond.
Whilst Home Insurance is moreso for the structure of the house in case of fire, flood, storm, etc etc. But even they might be hesitant to honour the insurance when it comes to circumstances such as arson, and gross negligence. And in your situation, wether you lived there or not, comes somewhere between the two.
So it was an uphill battle, but since you only have Landlord Insurance, they don't cover it and won't honour it. At best you might get a couple thousand, but not likely.
Incase you missed it, the system wants you to work hard and keep paying higher prices to buy property, pay more fees on top, and then get several layers of insurance. When all said and done, landlords are (almost) as poor as tenants. The real winners have always been The Banker, Insurance, Property Developers, and Politicians. Not the Average Joe.
There is an extra cover you need to add on top of landlord insurance to cover for destruction caused by tenants.
It’s a bit more complicated with a unit in a strata complex through right? The building insurance is with the body corporate. I specifically cannot get a quote for building insurance on my unit because of that from NRMA/RACQ anyway.
Read the PDS and approach the ombudsmen.
Yeah I read my PDS top to bottom every word, its not clear.
Is the tenant still alive?
Sue the tenant's estate.
Why would insurance not cover it?? Sure it was a stupid thing to do, but it wasn’t an intentional act
Maybe its under the whats we dont cover section in the PDS?
Or maybe it just damaged the OP's carpet? Or curtains? Which usually covered by the tenant contents policy?
OP only given us half the info.
Ocker on 10/09/2022 - 16:23 Comment score below threshold.
