Rental property damage: Landlords liable - court rules

[muppet]

Tenants who damage rental properties aren't necessarily liable for the damage, the Court of Appeal has ruled

.
Read more in the Granny at

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11626503

[BigDreamer]

Wow.

What were the court thinking??

[Perry]

Landlord Liable For Rental Property Damage

Rental Property Damage: Landlords Liable - Appeal Court Rules
Thursday 21 April, 2016

Tenants who damage rental properties aren't necessarily liable for the damage,
the Court of Appeal has ruled. In a years-long dispute over fire damage to
a property, the court says tenants don't necessarily have to cover the costs
of damage they or people they invite into a house have caused.

Ouch!

[BlueSky]

Crickey what next!

[Davo36]

Well not surprising really.

The tenancy tribunal have generally ruled in favour of residential tenants for years.

However, not normally the Court of Appeal.

I have no idea how they reached this conclusion. A tenant can burn down a landlord's property and not be liable for the landlord's costs?

[Keys]

I have a few older properties. What would the insurance industry say if I housed pyromaniac's?

[Ivan McIntosh]

It's about the insurer suing in the shoes of the landlord to recover from the tenant. The insurers want to be able to both collect premiums from landlords and still get their payout money back if there is an accident. There were some Property Law Act changes a while ago to stop them doing so. The previous cases have tended to be commercial premises when the tenant is essentially paying for the insurance and gets sued anyway; this is the first residential one I've seen. It's been bubbling away in the background for a while.

[Ivan McIntosh]

It's not about not being liable for the landlords costs. It's about the insurer's costs.

It's about situations where the landlord insures a houses against fire. The tenant leaves a pan of oil on the stove and it burns the house down. It's an accident, but a negligent one...but fires often are. The landlord's insurer pays out.

Should the landlord's insurer then be able to sue the tenant for the full amount of the payout? Put another way, should the insurer collect all its premiums against the risk from the landlords, and then be able to recover its payouts?

[Perry]

Wasn't the 'normal' practice to just go after
the excess? Or something similar to that.

[DazRaz]

Yes, but that is where the tenant's Public Liability cover provided as part of their contents insurance protects them.

[mrsaneperson]

It's about the insurer suing in the shoes of the landlord to recover from the tenant. The insurers want to be able to both collect premiums from landlords and still get their payout money back if there is an accident. There were some Property Law Act changes a while ago to stop them doing so. The previous cases have tended to be commercial premises when the tenant is essentially paying for the insurance and gets sued anyway; this is the first residential one I've seen. It's been bubbling away in the background for a while.

So are you saying if the landlord is not insured the courts would then view it differently?

I don't have insurance because their should be a fair reasonable fair price for most common things - but their isn't with the insurance companies operating in NZ - insurance companies operate here by a monopoly marketing strategy ,gouging out as much as they can with their hefty hi-jacked premiums . Only 2 insurance companies exist here primarily - operating under various blanket names & all coming back to the same parent.

So a total unfairness currently exists - i choose not to engage or be part of the "hand over your money" rort.

Then look at the stress & mess insurance companies & the EQC have caused to peoples lives with many ongoing battles - 40 suicide victims from the Christchurch earthquake. These are the real after shocks!

[Anthonyacat]

I don't have insurance because...

Do you own property? Have a mortgage? I'd be very surprised if a bank would lend to an uninsured property.

Or do you mean personal insurance? Accident, Income Protection, Pet, Contents, Vehicle...?

I completely agree that insurance companies are not a sensible place to put your money; but on the proviso that one must be able to survive should the uninsured event occur. I insure all my property, and I'll always have third party on my car, in case something were to go wrong and I cause a 15-car pileup, or drive through someone's living room wall.

[mrsaneperson]

I only have a mortgage on 1 of my properties - that one is insured only. Once paid off i will not renew the insurance policy as its a complete rip-off.
I have only ever had very few and only small claims in the past when i have been insured. The hassle ,headaches and stress when dealing with insurance company when making even a small claim is enough to kill some people. Then there is all their opt-out clauses like Dux piping that is plumbed in springing a leak but being told ""Öh we wont cover that""..Something like 90% of older houses use the stuff.

40 in fact died just in Christchurch - specifically related to battles with insurance companies. Read the story in the Herald. Plus Campbell live covered it many times, tragedy specific to the ongoing battles. Disgusting and many times worse than the earthquake itself . The rogues will not steal money from me.

My insurance is investing in getting good tenants. Maintain the property well and where needed carry out regular inspections.

[Eugene]

Have you looked at the cost of a policy with a high excess?
What say there was a fire?

[mrsaneperson]

Sure have - once you go past a certain excess it makes little difference to the cost of the premium. Also the vast majority of insurance claims are probably less than 2k - the insurance companies know this.
And rort it for all its worth.
They also dont let you under insure if you want that choice - telling customers that they are so very caring about you they would never allow you to do this. They are after all selling fear.
However if some customers want that choice, in order to keep premiums lower , cost effective & affordable they should make those options available.