Re: Let’s Have Fun / Landlord Stories - Posted by michaela-CA
Posted by michaela-CA on May 15, 2007 at 23:57:52:
Maybe throw in a box of picture hangers with every lease 
I’d rather hear how the ins claim went - Posted by JT-IN
Posted by JT-IN on May 10, 2007 at 17:17:01:
Tell us how that worked out…? Lenght of time to get funds, etc…
I have never had it happen before, but from everyone that seems to go through the process, the end result is you have lots less coverage and benefits than you thought you had… How was your experience and how much was the claim…?
Funny story BTW… I used to have a couple props that I would have liked to rented to that guy…
JT-IN
Re: Let’s Have Fun / Landlord Stories-LMAO - Posted by Jack E
Posted by Jack E on May 10, 2007 at 17:01:23:
Thats a good one.
Re: Lame but true … - Posted by Rich-CA
Posted by Rich-CA on May 09, 2007 at 19:06:27:
FCC regulations REQUIRE that we cannot interfere with a person’s free access to these kinds of services. If you do not have a policy that allows this without attaching to the building, then they have the right to file a compaint with the FCC against you.
I remember that one - Posted by John Behle
Posted by John Behle on May 10, 2007 at 19:16:14:
That poor dog. Really sad.
Reminded me of coming close to a Darwin award myself as a kid. Had a one inch firecracker where the fuse burned to next to nothing and stopped. So, of course, I leaned over close to it and relit the fuse with a magnifying glass. Ouch…
By all rights I should have been in the Darwin Awards as a teenager. In the wintertime the garage got cold, so I would clean my motorcycle in the furnace room. Gasoline in a spay bottle was my favorite cleaning agent.
Insurance Paid Quickly - Posted by Jimmy
Posted by Jimmy on May 11, 2007 at 07:20:12:
I’ve had three fire claims over the years. 2 were clearly arson, and one was the skunk eradication situation.
In all cases, the insurance company sent out an investigator/adjuster. they would look over hte police/fire marshall reports, poke around a little, ask me questions, and start processing the claim. obviously, they wanted to satisfy themselves that I was not “in” on the fire. once so satisfied, the policy would pay off in a matter of a week or 2.
I did learn something. you need to have about 10K more insurance coverage that you would otherwise carry, because you may have some serious demolition/removal expenses. one of my properties burned just enough to be a total insurance loss, but 75% of the structure was still standing.
Re: I’d rather hear how the ins claim went - Posted by Rich-CA
Posted by Rich-CA on May 10, 2007 at 19:50:59:
I had read about a case in Oregon, if memory serves, where Farmers denied a claim due to the damage being caused by a tenant who was engaged in illegal activity. Farmers won the court case and did not pay. I was so alarmed I contacted my insurance agents in AZ and TX and e-mailed them the story. They both checked with claims and told me that only if I knew there was illegal activity and did not take action to immediately remove the offenders would I be denied payment.
Haven’t tested this for real and hope never to do so.
LMAO … - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on May 09, 2007 at 19:46:38:
Show me the FCC regulation that says that tenants (or anyone else) have the RIGHT to satellite TV. Show me.
I am within my rights as a landlord to dictate what gets bolted or affixed to the brick facade of my building. The FCC or whatever other government agency can tell me otherwise when they pay my monthly expenses.
In theory, I am not opposed to a central dish system ON THE ROOF, professionally installed where each apartment can hook into. I’ve heard such a thing exists and allows easy hookup for whoever wants it - and alleviates having 42 dishes on my building.
Other than that - it’s my building and my rules.
RL
Re: I remember that one - Posted by Edwin
Posted by Edwin on May 10, 2007 at 23:57:30:
John, your story reminds me of a similar story involving gasoline and a
Darwin award I probably should have “won.” One cold winter day when
I was a teenager I got kicked out of the house for a couple hours for
bad behavior. So, I built a fire in the backyard to try stay warm. The
fire wasn’t burning as hot as I’d like, so I reached for a nearby gas can
and poured gas on the fire to “speed things along.” Before I knew it,
the gas can was on fire, so I flung it away from me, only to have it land
on my Dad’s Model A truck. Didn’t damage the truck but did burn up
about half of the canvas cover it was under, before I could grab a hose
to extinguish it. 
Exception rather than the Rule - Posted by JT-IN
Posted by JT-IN on May 11, 2007 at 12:35:17:
Jimmy:
I will have to say that your experience is the exception rather than the rule, especially when it is deemed that foul play has been involved. As a friend always says to the ins agent, at the time of a claim: "Which one is it, M., N. or O…? Meaning, which footnote or exclusion will the use to avoid paying the claim…?
BTW, aren’t you an Atty…? I wonder what impact this may have on their willingness to settle the claim. You possess the ability to litigate a situation much more easily than most, and the easiest approach is to settle. I am well aware of some health coverages which exclude certain job codes, Attys being one, and nothing to do with industrial risk. It simply has to do with the legal risk fact, as I have been told. Risk of the Trade…
JT-IN
Re: I’d rather hear how the ins claim went - Posted by Sailor
Posted by Sailor on May 10, 2007 at 21:48:44:
It is part of the job of being a landlord to pay attention to
activities of tenants. I’ve found it interesting, & indeed trying, to
keep up w/the identities of tenants lately. With the current
economic problems, desparate folks are huddling together under
one (my) roof, & the potential liabilities are fearsome. I’ve had a
42 yr old masquerading as the grandson of a 61 yr old. Right
now I’ve got a mother who tried to sneak in a son, who then
brought in a girlfriend, who brought in her child. I am in the
process of pitching a fit.
Tye
only if I knew there was illegal activity - Posted by JT-IN
Posted by JT-IN on May 10, 2007 at 20:51:45:
only if I knew there was illegal activity… “or a reasonable person (manager doing their job) should have known”… That is always their slant, and their opinion always is, you should have known, and that is their out for paying a claim.
Bottom line, when there is a big claim, they immediately begin to squirm and look for the “exit signs”. They would rather beat you out of the money than pay the claim… is about what it boils down to.
Likewise, I have never really had that unfortunate experience either on a really big claim, and hope I can keep it that way. My opinions come from watching ins cos when there have relatively few dollars involved, and watching them squirm as if we are talking millions.
I had a situation within in the past couple of years where someone fell coming out of one of my tenants’ office, of a comml’ bldg. They tripped over a masonary block that one of the tenants was using to prop open their door. I had my lead tenant who we had a mgmt agreement with, who essentially coordinated rent receipts and janitorial services, etc… as oversight more or less. My ins co wanted a copy of the document and a history of what he had been paid. Once they received that data, they essentially (attempted) to push the risk off on the prop mgr, and they threw him under the bus with the claimants Atty. I went round and round with the adjust for my company, and he insisted that the prop mgr was excluded from coverage (vehemently). We darn-near came to blows over it…
So I got out the policy, read it over and over, and low and behold their language states “Who is a covered insured”… The named Insured, Employees, this and that, PROPERTY MANAGERS… So I called this j*ckass up and read him the riot act over it… Then he has the audacity to say to me, “Well, I have never read the policy before”. I could have wrung his neck, after all that, and them treating my prop mgr that way… The only injustice was that the claimant eventually went away, and the company didn’t have to pay any claim. They should have paid me for “pain and suffering” for dealing with the adjuster. And we were talking about a potential claim of about 15K here. 6K annual prem for that property. They got some nerve, I’ll tell you.
JT-IN
Re: LMAO … - Posted by Natalie-VA
Posted by Natalie-VA on May 09, 2007 at 21:12:18:
I’m familiar with what Rich is talking about, but I think it applies to HOAs and Condo Associations.
I don’t know if or how it would apply to your privately owned building.
–Natalie
Re: LMAO … - Posted by Rich-CA
Posted by Rich-CA on May 09, 2007 at 20:23:24:
I got this on advice of an attorney who was retained by the HOA where I was president a number of years ago. I can only repeat what our attorney told me as I did not check his citations. He did, however, have an exchange with the attorney of the owner who violated our rules against attachment of dishes to the outside of the building.
Again, this is hearsay from an attorney, so I would check with your attorney as it may be an interpretation by the lawyer.
Just trying to figure out … - Posted by Barry (FL)
Posted by Barry (FL) on May 11, 2007 at 07:32:09:
which was more dangerous, the gas can or your Dad?
Re: I’d rather hear how the ins claim went - Posted by Rich-CA
Posted by Rich-CA on May 10, 2007 at 22:58:33:
I have had this happen, and they keep the “extras” moving around to make it hard to pin them on. It happens less at the more expensive (and less profitable) properties. My application requires the name, age and SSN of every person (including children) who live in the property. All adults have to have a full credit and background check. If they are over limit, and this is hard to find out, or have people different from the ones we have seen (we also keep copies of their picture IDs on file), they are evicted. The lease says that this is cause for eviction and that no warnings will be given. We have properties within walking distance of day care centers and elementary schools. Because we do “sex offender” check as well, its very important to monitor who lives in these properties. Our lease also says we will do an inspection any time we enter the premises, including for repair work.
Re: only if I knew there was illegal activity - Posted by Rich-CA
Posted by Rich-CA on May 10, 2007 at 23:08:13:
I don’t trust insurance companies to do more than (1) protect their own interests and (2) make sure they don’t do anything so bad it makes the news and hurts business.
That being said, annually when I get the “also insured” statements for my mortgage holders, I also make them produce ones for my property managers as well. Then if we have a claim, I include my copy of the document with the rest of the forms. To date I haven’t had anything where backing out would have passed the “smell test” if I had to sue the insurance company for performance of their contract (policy), and so it hasn’t come up. But I try to be cautious and a little paranoid on behalf of people who are doing good work for me.
Re: only if I knew there was illegal activity - Posted by Sailor
Posted by Sailor on May 10, 2007 at 21:42:35:
I’ve made a point of keeping all my ins w/a local agent & of
maintaining a good relationship w/him & w/his assistant. It has
been a small, but excellent, investment.
Tye
Re: only if I knew there was illegal activity - Posted by Eric in FL
Posted by Eric in FL on May 10, 2007 at 21:30:04:
I have several stories like that and it always goes back to insurance being synonomous with “legalized extortion”. The only business that is regulated by government and the government profits from aka Citizens Insurance in Florida. Citizens my a**, it should be called Senators and House of Representatives insurance.
Best Regards,
Eric
Re: LMAO … - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on May 09, 2007 at 22:35:19:
Well thanks for the info, but as a rule anything told to me by an attorney must be backed up with the law or regulation otherwise I assume they are making things up as they go along - which they often do.
RL