Q: My sister and her husband are about to sign a lease on a two-bedroom apartment. The lease requires them to have insurance for the contents of the residence.

I agree with the requirement, but my problem is with the landlord also requiring that they carry a minimum of $300,000 in public liability insurance coverage for bodily injury and property damage in and about the dwelling. The lease also requires that the landlord be named as an additional insured under that policy and provide the landlord with proof of such coverage. I don’t believe that it is the tenant’s responsibility to hold public liability insurance, especially in the ridiculous amount of $300,000. Please correct me if I’m wrong regarding this issue.

Property Manager Robert Griswold replies: The landlord’s request is not unreasonable and is actually to your benefit as well.

Renters are not covered by the insurance policy of the landlord or owner of the property unless there is clear negligence on the landlord’s part. Thus, it is prudent for renters to have their own insurance policy that will cover their possessions as well as offer them coverage for alternative living expenses in the event they are displaced from the rental property.

A renter’s insurance policy will generally include a nominal amount of liability coverage (like $300,000) as part of the package. This coverage is important because the landlord (and the renter) could be named in a lawsuit brought by a friend or guest or even a delivery person or worker that claims they were injured at the property.

Q: I am a new landlord of a single-family home. The lease states that the tenant shall pay the first $25 of any charge for repairs by a service person, but a friend told me this is not legal. I have this clause in my lease so that the tenant will know they will be responsible if they damage anything in the house. Please let me know if this charge is appropriate.

Tenant attorney Steven R. Kellman replies: There are many ways that tenants can be pressured to give up rights. There is the extra per-month charge for children, there is the per-day late penalty fee and then there is the first $25 per repair fee. All are illegal.

If a tenant believes that they will pay the first $25 of a repair bill, they may feel pressured to just forget about getting the repair done. Also, this is a bad deal for landlords. As a landlord, you do not want problems hidden from you. A dripping pipe can cause major damage over time.

Also, if a tenant caused significant damage to the unit, they could claim that their liability is limited to only $25, forcing you to pay the rest even though they should pay for it. Tenants are responsible for negligence or abuse- caused damage to your unit beyond ordinary wear and tear without such a term in your lease. Therefore, this is a term that is improper and should not be in your rental agreement.

Landlord attorney Ted Smith replies: California law states that landlords must maintain their residential properties in a state of habitability. This duty may not be waived or modified by contract between the parties.

As a result, the landlord may not ask the tenant to pay the first $25 — or any other amount — of habitability repairs. I recommend this clause be deleted.

You should set up a system whereby tenants promptly notify you in writing of needed repairs, then keep a written record of work done. If tenants are at fault — carelessly or intentionally damaging the rental — they have violated the lease, are responsible for the repair costs, and could be subject to eviction. Examples of this are toys dropped into the toilet or grease fires on the stove.

Finally, it should be remembered that the law of habitability applies to residential rentals only and to the most important, basic requirements of the apartment — heat, water, electrical and so forth. It does not apply to purely aesthetic or cosmetic items.

Send questions to Rental Roundtable, 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92121-1743, or by e-mail to rgriswold@retodayradio.com.

Source:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/24/REGUVN1QFD1.DTL

 Q: My sister and her husband are about to sign a lease on a two-bedroom apartment. The lease requires them to have insurance for the contents of the residence.

I agree with the requirement, but my problem is with the landlord also requiring that they carry a minimum of $300,000 in public liability insurance coverage for bodily injury and property damage in and about the dwelling. The lease also requires that the landlord be named as an additional insured under that policy and provide the landlord with proof of such coverage. I don’t believe that it is the tenant’s responsibility to hold public liability insurance, especially in the ridiculous amount of $300,000. Please correct me if I’m wrong regarding this issue.

Property Manager Robert Griswold replies: The landlord’s request is not unreasonable and is actually to your benefit as well.

Renters are not covered by the insurance policy of the landlord or owner of the property unless there is clear negligence on the landlord’s part. Thus, it is prudent for renters to have their own insurance policy that will cover their possessions as well as offer them coverage for alternative living expenses in the event they are displaced from the rental property.

A renter’s insurance policy will generally include a nominal amount of liability coverage (like $300,000) as part of the package. This coverage is important because the landlord (and the renter) could be named in a lawsuit brought by a friend or guest or even a delivery person or worker that claims they were injured at the property.

Q: I am a new landlord of a single-family home. The lease states that the tenant shall pay the first $25 of any charge for repairs by a service person, but a friend told me this is not legal. I have this clause in my lease so that the tenant will know they will be responsible if they damage anything in the house. Please let me know if this charge is appropriate.

Tenant attorney Steven R. Kellman replies: There are many ways that tenants can be pressured to give up rights. There is the extra per-month charge for children, there is the per-day late penalty fee and then there is the first $25 per repair fee. All are illegal.

If a tenant believes that they will pay the first $25 of a repair bill, they may feel pressured to just forget about getting the repair done. Also, this is a bad deal for landlords. As a landlord, you do not want problems hidden from you. A dripping pipe can cause major damage over time.

Also, if a tenant caused significant damage to the unit, they could claim that their liability is limited to only $25, forcing you to pay the rest even though they should pay for it. Tenants are responsible for negligence or abuse- caused damage to your unit beyond ordinary wear and tear without such a term in your lease. Therefore, this is a term that is improper and should not be in your rental agreement.

Landlord attorney Ted Smith replies: California law states that landlords must maintain their residential properties in a state of habitability. This duty may not be waived or modified by contract between the parties.

As a result, the landlord may not ask the tenant to pay the first $25 — or any other amount — of habitability repairs. I recommend this clause be deleted.

You should set up a system whereby tenants promptly notify you in writing of needed repairs, then keep a written record of work done. If tenants are at fault — carelessly or intentionally damaging the rental — they have violated the lease, are responsible for the repair costs, and could be subject to eviction. Examples of this are toys dropped into the toilet or grease fires on the stove.

Finally, it should be remembered that the law of habitability applies to residential rentals only and to the most important, basic requirements of the apartment — heat, water, electrical and so forth. It does not apply to purely aesthetic or cosmetic items.

Send questions to Rental Roundtable, 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92121-1743, or by e-mail to rgriswold@retodayradio.com.

Source:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/24/REGUVN1QFD1.DTL