Add new comment

Lets get one thing straight. If I choose not to have renter's insurance, that's MY choice. I'm getting sick of trying to find a legitimate answer to this question that doesn't involve "I believe they can. why resist it? why wouldn't you have it?" Read carefully. It's my f*cking choice.

I don't have guests, ever. I don't keep anything of $ value in my apartment, since I plan on moving within the next year and got rid of mostly everything. The question is, can a landlord FORCE someone to buy insurance, and force the tenant to name the landlord as "a vested party for reimbursement should there be any damages."?

If a pipe bursts, the landlord IS responsible for the damage to the apartment. I understand my belongings may not be covered by their insurance, but it's MY choice to take that risk.

I don't care about landlords worries about "getting into a protracted argument with a distraught tenant about what the landlord's policy does and does not coverage." If they can't interpret their own policy, that's between them and their agent. Not nearly a reason for me to shell out cash every month.

This is clearly another way landlords are trying to screw their tenants. Anyone who disagrees doesn't understand personal freedom, is an insurance agent, or is themselves a landlord who will benefit from this.

Someone who is renting is obviously not financially secure enough to buy a home yet, so why pile more useless debt on them? For their protection? I think there should be a law that you wear a helmet 24 hours a day. "Just in case" something happens. Why wouldn't you?

Personal freedom to take risks only affecting yourself. Thats why.

The car insurance analogy might work if my apartment had four wheels and went 80 mph on a rainy freeway.