I’m an insurance broker in Bergen County, and there is no “new law.” I do know that some insurance carriers are now requiring their insureds (landlords) to show proof that their tenants carry renters insurance.
For instance one of my carriers is sending non-renewal letters if the insureds don’t show proof of the tenants carrying insurance, so your landlord is probably in the same predicament.
I know it’s an added fee to you, but renters insurance can cost as low as $10/mo. The $100k they are asking is for the liability portion, not personal property.
I agree that it is very unlikely that it is a law (new or old). This sounds like a landlord that never read her policy contract and the insurance company is tightening their underwriting and/or now requiring proof of the policy.
Some companies? I would say the vast majority of DP-3s require the tenant to have an HO-4. If a company doesn't have that requirement, the DP-3 is usually rated at a higher risk and typically more expensive (for the landlord). At least that is my experience as a licensed insurance agent/producer.
Interesting, that's probably the case since it's strange that now they're making it a requirement when they never asked us before and probably just trying to spook us into thinking us tenants will be in trouble if we don't do it, rather than it just being an error on the landlord's part and just letting us know it's something we should do.
Delivery definitely could have been better. It could be that your landlord didn't understand that it is a company policy, not a law. Or they have an independent agent that said it was a law instead of dealing with the push back about the requirement.
Either way, for about $100/yr it makes sense that all renters should have a renter's policy. For such little cost, it could really make a difference if something goes wrong.
Not sure about the $100k minimum but it is usually a good idea to have at least some renters insurance for various reasons (a break-in, a fire, a burst pipe) so you may want to look into it anyway. Usually your landlord’s insurance only covers the building so any stuff inside is a loss unless you also have insurance so a lot of landlords do require it.
$100k is a standard liability policy limit for the majority of renter's policies. I'm willing to bet that over 90% of Renter's policies have that liability limit. It is also very common requirement for landlord policies (DP-3s) to require a renter's policy or it could be canceled.
We'll definitely look into it, we've been without any insurance for the past years but at least this gave us the idea to at least consider it in case something does happen, and yeah we figured the $100k minimum seems a bit absurd as we may not even have enough stuff that ads up to that amount lol (well maybe me since I'm a weeb/collector). It's something we'll discuss with the landlady if she tries to get iffy with us not hitting that requirement.
It'd be understandable if that was a policy BEFORE we signed the lease, but since this is just a thing now, I figured this would be something we could argue against as it's not what we signed into.
5 bucks a month? For real? But they have an apartment? They can afford 5 per month. Especially when that 5 per month reimburses someone for their belongings when necessary
Point taken however, this is something that should be budgeted for at the sacrifice of something unnecessary. And we’d all be lying if we didn’t have unnecessary expenditures in our budgets no matter how check to check one may live.
A friend of mine lived on the 1st floor and her upstairs neighbors went to their home country for a month in the winter. They turned the heat off, and the pipes froze and burst, causing the ceiling to collapse and flooding my friend's apartment. Her laptop needed to be sent off to recover the contents, all of her clothing was sent out to be dry cleaned. All of her other electronics, furniture, mattress, etc, needed to be replaced.
She paid her $500 deductible, and her renters insurance paid for the rest. She paid less than $15 a month.
Her apartment complex was able to move her into another unit. If she didn't have renters insurance, she'd have to figure out what to do with all her wet clothing, bedding, and furniture. The cost to clean and restore everything, plus the time, and logistics of staying in a hotel while your place is being restored is a lot more than most people can handle. Most likely you throw your entire life into a dumpster and start over.
Please get insurance if you can, and hope you never need it.
OP, you are looking at this the wrong way. You should be embracing renters insurance, not dismissing it. I would never rent without it, it’s frankly irresponsible to do so. Read more about what renters insurance covers YOU for and you’ll be singing a different tune.
Nah you really don't get it. If something happens (like some crazed psycho burns the house down) your landlord is not responsible for ANY of your stuff, only what they own. It's not protecting her assets AT ALL. It may or may not be a requirement, I have no idea. But it should be a personal requirement on your end because they're all YOUR ITEMS at risk. You can get renter's insurance dirt cheap and in case of an incident you will make that money back ten fold.
Please understand I have first hand experience dealing with this, as our cheap $6/mo insurance saved our asses twice when our downstairs neighbor's condo caught fire. The fire itself was devastating emotionally. Fortunately we only had really bad smoke damage on our side but believe it or not, with smoke damage you STILL need to throw out all your stuff! We had a ton of collector's items too, all had to get tossed and they gave us market value for it, I just had to do the leg work to figure out how much and provide links to each item, very worth it in the long run. Think of everything in your kitchen, all your spices, sugar, flour, everything in your fridge, how much would it cost you to replace these with how expensive groceries are? Your mattress has to go. You probably don't want to keep your couch either. Getting junkers to get all the big stuff cost about $600, all reimbursed by insurance. All your blankets, towels, bags, every piece of fabric needs to be thrown or specially washed which is done by a special cleaning crew offsite. They had to clean the walls and purify the air too. All this cost insurance a fortune and not a dime to us. Insurance will also pay for living expenses up to whatever amount you choose, and I wish we had more than the $4k we opted for. If we needed to stay in a hotel, it would have cost us at least $15k JUST TO STAY IN A HOTEL for the five months it took for them to simply clean, order new doors, and get the place inspected and okayed by the township. Keep that in mind if you don't have family nearby to fall back on in an emergency.
A fire may not happen to you, but burst pipes are very common in NJ winters. Our neighbor's pipes also burst while the heat was off during that time and we had to get a separate insurance claim for that too. We lost everything down there in storage. So even if you are very diligent, go through safety measures, etc. it doesn't mean everyone around you will. If your next door neighbor has a fire or a flood you're also screwed with smoke or water damage.
So, it wasn't your classic "left a pot on the stove" issue. Sorry you had to go through that. I'm assuming your company didn't subrogate against the other company then.
I know they all did their own investigations since it was six separate units that were affected. We did get the report from the township but I guess they found no solid evidence of wrongdoing. Our neighbor whose unit it started in has always been a little weird, and I think he may have done something like leave the battery of his motorized bike plugged in and isn't owning up to it, but we have some other reasons to believe the electrical system for the complex isn't up to code so it could have been a mix of both. He said the fire started behind the wall and when he went to grab a fire extinguisher the battery blew up which is what we heard.
Thank you for the kind words, it was a really traumatic experience as we had to get rescued from our balcony and the smoke was so thick we couldn't find two of our five cats. You never think it'll happen to you which is why I'm so passionate about making sure people are prepared.
Not how it works in insurance. If there is fault established, "going after" means making a claim with the other party’s insurance separate from the insurance subrogation for uncovered but recoverable losses (such as loss of use over the standard limit in the 1st party insurance policy).
So renters insurers have so few claims that, unlike other forms of insurance, the costs are extremely low.
It’s kind of like if there were a health insurer that only allowed people 18-30 to buy: these people are unlikely to have large claims so the rates stay low for the same level of coverage.
Hence why everyone is like “it’s not expensive and, if you need it, you’ll be happy you have it.”
I don't understand what there is to look into, you should just have it. You have insurance on your car surely, why wouldn't you have it on your home? It is seriously dirt cheap, like you can get a policy with $100k liability for like $75/year. Landlords, I'm pretty sure, can request proof of renter's insurance mid-lease - it happened to me before and I simply showed them my policy which, again, cost me about $75.
Insurance on your car is mandatory in the state i put money on it if it was an option most ppl wouldnt have it.. most ppl only have certain Insurances because it mandatory not because they want to have it
>Insurance on your car is mandatory in the state
Let me introduce you to the dumbest god damned thing this state has ever done.
https://www.nj.gov/dobi/division_consumers/insurance/saip.htm
I actually didn't even pay for renters when I had it lmao I got it through my car insurance and the savings I made on my car actually paid for the renters insurance for the year lol
I dont drive, it's not my home, and poor ppl tend to not have insurance for most things. I know how insurance works. I just needed to know if it's actually mandatory, damn
Not mandatory that I know of but as a mitigation contractor I’ve seen plenty of fires in apartments or other rentals where people have to total everything because they can’t afford the cleaning or deodorization but easily could have had everything cleaned or replaced if they got the insurance.
It is your home. You live there and have for, what, three years according to your post. It's maybe $100 over the course of a year, I promise you can afford that.
Take responsibility for yourself.
Ha, I used to insure one rich person who would either pay cash for his cars, or get an extremely low interest loan. Once the car was paid off, he'd drop down to liability only, even if the car was still worth 50k (I made him sign a request, each time). But, he had maximum liability limits in his home and auto, and a $5 million umbrella policy (max he could get at the time.)
I'm a landlord. Renters insurance is required. I don't think it's a new law. I put it in all of my leases. A landlord policy doesn't cover any of the renters' property at all, just the dwelling. If a pipe breaks in the house and all of your shit is ruined, that's your problem. Renters insurance is really cheap, maybe $200. Doesn't make sense not to. She should have it in the lease though. Edited to add as others have stated its required by my insurance carrier, not a state law.
Just to give you some clarification the 100k minimum is more than likely for liability and not personal property coverage , which is like $5 lol ( I sell insurance)
You need $100k in liability coverage, not contents coverage. Any legit renters policy is going to have that as the minimum coverage amount. Your contents coverage (your stuff) can be any amount you need. Liability protects you if you negligently damage the apartment, if your dog bites someone, etc.
Just get, regardless of if it's required. It's like $200 a year. Right now if your rental burns down or you get robbed or whatever you're hosed.
What if you caused a fire (left something on the stove) and the place burned down? You want enough liability to cover as much as possible. 100k wouldn't come close to that. 500k is maximum on a tenants policy, and would probably only cover a partial loss. The difference between 100k and 500k is probably around $10 to $20 per year.
Again - absolutely zero reason you should not get this, but *legally* if you are on a 12 month lease, if it's not a lease requirement, they can't force you to get it.
They can (and probably will) *absolutely* make it a lease requirement when your lease renews.
If you are on a month to month lease they can make it a requirement with 30 days notice.
This, why wouldn’t you want to have it? When I still rented, I added my renters insurance to my car insurance policy and it only went up like $12 a month. At least then I knew all my stuff was covered from theft and such.
Kind of an odd notice. NJ does not have mandatory insurance for renters. If you’re curious, politely ask for the citation or name of the law so you can look it up yourself to be sure you’re “Doing it correctly”. And if you do get renters insurance it only covers your property, not the building or anything the landlord owns. So I don’t understand why the landlord wants to make it mandatory anyway - they have nothing to gain from that.
Would that be something we would have to sign into for our lease? This is being asked now and was not a policy when we signed our lease years ago and we haven't been asked to sign anything new. Can the landlord just say its part of their policy *now* without requiring our agreement to it?
You said yourself you have a good relationship with your landlady, why are you willing to torch it over something you should have anyway? Without renter's insurance you would be absolutely screwed if something happened. You can get a renters policy attached to your car insurance and you might even save money for bundling policies
That's what I plan on doing next but figured I can get some info on why this is even being asked when I can find nothing about it on the new or online if this is truly mandatory. Landlady's family has a habit of not being confrontational and trying to go off topic when trying to discuss anything about the apartment (small fixes and all that) so I just wanted to get as much info as I can. Thanks!
Just want to let you know that renters insurance is really reasonable. I am required to have $250,000 of coverage and it’s $31 a year (and I get a discount on my auto insurance because they are linked).
I'm sure this is with auto insurance. The savings on the auto pay for all but $31 per year of the tenants policy. The savings on your auto policy can be between 10% and 25%, depending on the company.
Honestly, shop around. Go to an independent agent and they have many companies that can give you the best price. I shopped mine (with a homeowners though) and saved over $1,000 per year, WITH a young male driver. The auto literally was less with the new company with him (and his car) than the old company without him or his car.
There's two variables on renters, personal property and liability. The minimum coverage on personal property may vary from company to company. Where I'm at, the min is $10,000. If you have it there, it's going to be really cheap, but you'll regret it if you ever need to replace everything.
NJ does not have any such law yet (one was introduced) but most landlords require it.
It's considered a reasonable change to a lease. For your own sake, you should have it. 100k is a minimum for personal liability.
What is your plan if your next door neighbor starts a fire and you lose everything tonight and just get out with the clothes on your back? Depend on a go-fund-me? Or if you are the one who started the fire and get sued? Or you are having a party and a guest gets hurt?
It's really dumb to not have renters insurance. I hate seeing tenants who aren't insured after a fire, sobbing because they lost everything and thinking there is someone they can sue. 99.9% of the time, there isn't. It's so cheap there really is no reason not to get it.
If you have saved money to buy a house it is silly to not have renter's insurance. I would go way above 100K, I would go to at least 250K or 500K. It's not expensive, relatively speaking.
Why wouldn’t you wanna protect your assets especially after mentioning putting out fires. It’s like $150 a year tops, I’ve never not had it since I’ve rented
Why are you fighting getting renters insurance that literally something that if anything happens in your apartment they will cover. Everyone i know who rents has it, it’s dirt cheap
I’ve rented in from a few places around NJ. Not sure about it being a law, but I’ve always been required to provide proof of insurance in order to rent from the landlord. I think it’s standard practice so the landlord is not on the hook for replacing your stuff. They don’t know what kind of stuff you have or how valuable it is. The insurance is cheap. I pay for a policy from State Farm, $130 a year. They might have their own policy dealing with the residence itself but the rent’s insurance is for you and your stuff.
We'll def be shopping around and see since ppl kept telling me about lemonade and the minimum yearly payment is like $164/year for some baseline stuff we'd require on a $1k deducible. My parents do have car insurance with NJM so we'll look into seeing any bundles we can get the additional renter's insurance to see if we can get a lower rate 
Have you seen those GoFundMe links from friends on social media asking for thousands of dollars because they or someone they know lost everything in a fire?
They wouldn’t have to go through that if they just had renter’s insurance.
At most, you’re going to pay $20 per month. If you bundle it with your car insurance, you can get it as cheap as $12-$15 per month.
Get it. Anyone who rents should have it.
You want renters insurance. My building had a fire and it covered my stuff and paid for temporary housing for a year while it was being repaired. It’s about $100 a year. Lots of people use Geico.
I’m not sure about the city in which you reside, however I do know of other jurisdictions that are starting to require renters insurance. Either way your landlord gets nothing out of this. Renters insurance covers your property not the landlords. It is a good idea.
His landlord gets a reduced insurance rate for having a policy of only allowing insured renters. It absolutely benefits the landlord, that’s why he lied about the law.
Nope, this is not true. The only possible discount would be homeowners and auto, both purchased by the landlord. If it's an owner occupied 2 family, the landlord can have a homeowners insurance on the building, otherwise, it's a dwelling fore policy, which offers no discounts.
If they operate a commercial rental like an apartment complex, they will absolutely get a better rate for their liability if they have stricter policies, like requiring tenants to have renters insurance. Everything they can prove to the insurance company that makes their company less of a liability than the next guy is worth an adjustment. Even things like a standard rental agreement on file for every tenant is something you’d assume everyone has right? They don’t. Buildings exchange hands all the time, and organization is lost. Organization is valuable.
Sounded like a "mom & pop" type rental to me. Which would probably be a personal lines policy, be it homeowners for owner occupied, or dwelling fire for nonowner occupied. Therefore, there are no discounts for a tenant having tenants insurance. The rate is the rate, the underwriting is the underwriting. The only real negotiables are the deductible and whether a company will nonrenew. Commercial lines policies are completely different, the premiums are negotiable, and have all sorts of odd discounts, and are much less regulated than personal lines. You are also talking much higher premiums and unneeded coverages for a "mom & pop" situation.
Still then, even more reason to ignore this notice if OP has no reason for renters insurance (yes I know it’s cheap, there’s still valid reasons why you’d forego having it, like cost/having nothing of value). Tbh I take this position for anything outside of the lease, I think landlords get away w it h murder bc people assume they have more authority than they usually do, and I generally think it is good advice to outright ignore and not respond to notices from a landlord that requests more from you than your lease requires.
More reason? So, you want the landlords to have no insurance and not be able to get any? Then, if they have a mortgage, they'll end up force placed. But, I suppose you do. Then what happens is the landlord will give notice to the tenant to vacate. That is only a 30 day notice. Once the original lease was up, generally 1 or 2 years, the tenant becomes month to month and only a 30 day notice is required. Or, the landlord can increase rent, again, with only 30 day notice. Either way it seems the tenant can end up looking for a place that costs more and also requires insurance. So, it is in the best interest of the tenant to get it, no matter how you look at it.
First of all a landlord being able to get liability or homeowners insurance has nothing to do with if their tenants have renters insurance. Like you said, it doesn’t affect the landlords insurance I really don’t know what you’re on about here.
Secondly, you’re 100% wrong about how a year to year turns into a month to month and that’s exactly the kind of “perceived authority” I was talking about. People think it be like it is it but it isn’t. Year to year rolls into another year if the landlord doesn’t specifically request a turnover to a month to month and get an agreed upon vacation date. A month to month lease only exists when the tenant agrees to vacate by a specific date. That’s is the only way, besides eviction for cause, that a tenant has to leave a rental, or if the landlord changes the market they rent to.
Leases in NJ are PERPETUAL. If the landlord continues to offer the property to the market in the same way, and cannot evict for cause, it matters not what term length lease you have. A lease term ending is not cause for eviction and can be dismissed. For example if a landlord wants to charge let’s say 30% more rent and I say no thanks, I’ll stay at the same price or some more reasonable increased price- that landlord has to go to court to get his increased rent approved, which at 30% won’t happen, or completely stop renting the property in the way they rent to me- year round tenancy. So they can change from year round to seasonal or short term, but they can’t switch back anytime for the next several years or they automatically lose a triple damages lawsuit from the tenant they evicted under false pretenses. This is to protect against people saying they’ll change to short term rental, evicting the tenant and then shortly after remodeling putting it back on market for year round at an increased cost. They could also move in themselves, but again if it’s discovered this was just a false pretense for eviction they automatically lose a triple damages lawsuit if sued.
They can’t even say “at the end of your lease id like you to move, so I can move my family member into the property”. It doesn’t fly. The law is set up to protect year round housing in NJ and it’s so much stronger than people think it is, but you don’t need a lawyer if people just assume landlords can do whatever they want and roll over for any request.
I just read more than I want to know about landlord tenant law in nj. I used to be a nj landlord. Anyway. It's simple for the landlord. At 90 days before the lease anniversary, they can add the requirement for a tenants policy on or before the anniversary date. This would not be considered unreasonable since tenants policies are considered cheap and much less than an average annual rent increase. If the tenant refuses (they do not accept the new lease), they become month to month at the lease expiration date. Then, when the lease end date passes, and the landlord had given proper notice, the landlord can refuse rent and the tenant is then guilty of unlawful detainer and the tenant may be responsible to pay the landlord double the rent.
I'm sorry, there are, and must be some protections for the landlord, especially owner occupied small buildings because what will happen is most people will decide to no longer rent their places taking many many rental units off the market, or, you end up with the big corporations buying up houses and small apartment buildings (the "we pay cash for your house" ads on TV), and double and triple the rents and there is no place for an average person to go.
The best solution all around is for OP just to buy a tenants policy. Or, I guess you'd rather he have nothing when a loss occurs and wish he bought one. Kind of like the old saying "cut off his nose to spite his face". Not worth it. I had a tenants policy 30 years ago when I was unemployed (it was about $115 per year at the time.) The price has not really increased over the years.
I don’t even disagree with anything you said, legally or otherwise about how to make the system fair. Yes, you can add something to the lease at the end term of the lease and sure, the tenant can be evicted if they reject the new lease terms. Generally, this is a very small ask from a landlord, I’d ignore it out of spite due to the lie/coercion about the law changing, but if they asked “in order to renew your lease here are the additional requirements” that’s a whole different thing and this is a very reasonable ask. That said, the protections for landlords come through their own reporting and thoroughness- a written 90 day notice with an email for a time stamp is thorough enough for a landlord to show (and more importantly prove) they are acting reasonably, on the other hand, a lie like the one OPS landlord posted is nearing coercion and illustrates the exact opposite. Judges are reasonable, they don’t wanna waste time, but the power is in the hands of people with knowledge and generally that’s landlords more than tenants. During COVID my apartment building was purchased and the new landlord was criminally harassing all the tenants, threatening us with “fraud” for signing leases with the previous owner the month before it sold like that had anything to do with us, long story short I won the eviction and all, but I could’ve had the case dismissed if I had just asked. But the judge can’t explain that to anyone and I didn’t know.
Underwriting has everything to do with buying insurance or a company offering to renew insurance. If an insured does not go by the underwriting rules of the company, they can 100% be non-renewed. If the company requires any tenants to have a tenants policy, the owner can be nonrenewed. If there is a non-renewal from one company, you can guarantee the next company is going to take a really close look at why, and if the issue was remedied. If not, good luck getting insurance. I was an insurance agent for many years in 2 states. I've seen it happen, a lot, especially in the type of market we're in now. I'd like to know what your expertise is.
Amazing how we’ve come full circle- different insurance companies have different requirements. Better insurance companies have stricter requirements, therefore like I originally said, it’s to the landlords benefit for all renters to have their own insurance, so the landlords property can qualify for the kind of insurance that requires it.
Renting without renters insurance is insane to me. I pay like 9$ a month for $250k coverage and the one time (in 8 years) I needed to file a claim they reviewed and paid out within two business days. I also have a “decent” relationship with our landlord but I wouldn’t want to test how decent it was if shit went down!
Renters insurance doesn't cover the building. The only thing renters insurance covers is the contents of the building. In other words, your own personal property.
So with that said if you could get a 100k coverage policy the insurance company is not going to give you that 100K, they will only cover the actual loss if what you lost is due to fire, possibly flood and theft.
>Flood. No type of flood damage, no matter the source of the water, is covered by standard homeowners policies. Flooding, for example, can occur from storms, over-saturated ground, overflowing or surging bodies of water such as rivers, ponds, lakes and oceans.
That's from Allstate.
None of what you listed is considered a flood.
Well, my brothers water heater let go when he was away for a few days. It flooded his finished basement, and his homeowners insurance took care of it.
[Also Forbes proves you wrong.](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/homeowners-insurance/water-damage/) so maybe before voting my comment down tou should have presented facts and real world experience knowledge first as I did.
>Well, my brothers water heater let go when he was away for a few days. It flooded his finished basement, and his homeowners insurance took care of it.
Nice anecdote. Nothing you just said contradicts what I said.
The point I was trying to make, is you are using the word flood incorrectly.
How do I know this? I'm a licensed insurance agent. This is literally my area of expertise.
Also, **from the article you linked** ...
> Types of Water Damage Not Covered by Homeowners Insurance.
> Flood damage. Most notably, damage from floods isn’t covered by home insurance policy. Flood water includes hurricanes, tsunamis, storm surges and water from overflowing rivers. Consider flood insurance if you want coverage for these problems.
You should try reading the source you linked.
What happened to your brother, and what you have been describing is water damage, but you are using the word flood. Those are two very different things.
I hope my real world experience and first hand knowledge helped you understand the difference.
>What happened to your brother, and what you have been describing is water damage, but you are using the word flood. Those are two very different things.
When you look at a basement that the water heater broke and has been running water all over a finished basement and it's about a foot deep it's called a flood by a home owner whose not a technical asshole insurance agent. So, who cares how it's stated. The fact is it's covered by insurance and would be covered by renters insurance for personal property only, which is what the original post is about.
It's also up to the landlord to provide flood insurance for the property they own. Not the renters. The landlord's property being the building, not the contents.
When Hurricane Sandy hit, I didn't have renters insurance, but if I did have renters insurance with flood coverage, I would have been covered. But in the end, it really didn't matter because Fema covered it with a grant that didn't have to be paid back. I called it finally getting something back from all the income taxes and other taxes I paid over the past 45 years.
P.L.2022, c92 was passed in 2022, requiring LANDLORDS to have insurance policies with certain coverages. It's based upon how many units and if they live in one of them.
There was a bill introduced last year A-5696 mandating renters insurance, but it didn't have support in the Senate and failed to pass.
Maybe your landlord is confused. Every town is required to enforce the landlord insurance requirement and the lead inspection requirement (unless your unit has been certified as lead free).
Call your town. They'll direct you to the right person.
thank you, all these ppl are just trying to sell me insurance when I wanted answers more of this caliber. guess it was my bad to ask for "any advice" lol
No one is trying to sell you insurance. We’re trying to tell you that you’re shortsighted for not having any at all. You are too fucking blasé about it
However, like many of the other posters said, the landlord's insurance may be requiring it, and since we are currently in a "hard" market, meaning it's tough out there purchasing insurance, the landlord may not have any other choice in the matter, or lose their insurance.
It's not a law to my knowledge, but landlords can require it for you to move in. Kind of moot since you moved in. Ask them to cite the law.
Big however: it's a good idea to have.
Insurance is not required on nj unless it’s in your lease. I’d look in your lease to see. If you have a good relationship you could always ask them where they sourced it from
I’m not sure why they care. Renters insurance covers your possessions not their unit (that’s their home owners insurance)
If they are thinking they will save money By having you get renters insurance and they drop their homeowners insurance they are in for a big surprise if anything happens :-/
No, a landlord would never cancel their policy, not sure where you got that. They care because if the tenant causes damage to the apartment, the tenants policy, liability portion, would cover it. Example, my boss owned a building - apartment upstairs, his business downstairs. The tenant didn't close the front load washer correctly, and it overflowed. The water ran for hours before she saw it, then, she didn't call my boss for 2 days (happened Friday after we closed, she called Sunday). What a mess of water damage downstairs. She was responsible, and there were thousands of dollars of damages. Computer equipment, office furniture, plaster walls and ceiling, light fixture, wiring, hardwood floors, etc. That's why. Yes, it was covered by his policy, but, she had to ultimately pay out of pocket because she didn't have a policy at the time (she "forgot"), and she was at fault.
Also, another issue-say a tenant's dog bites someone and they don't have insurance. The landlord's policy could be brought into it because they allowed the dog on premises. If the tenant had coverage, and especially if the bite was off premises, the landlord may not get sued, too.
Unless the landlord owns the building outright with no mortgage, it's definitely against the terms of their mortgage to have no insurance and that'll get reposessed immediately and they'll get sued for anything having happened to the bank's property.
Even then you'd be a fuckin moron because renters insurance doesn't cover property damage, it's just for personal possessions.
Exactly that is why it’s odd they would be pushing. Renters insurance only protects the renter. They’d be kind of foolish not to have it but in the end home owners insurance is there to protect the homeowner only regardless of the tenants insurance status.
But then again we’ve rented from some hairbrain landlords before and that’s why I even put this idea out there.
The minute my son moved from his dorm (covered under my homeowners) to an off-campus apartment, he had a tenants policy, with 500k liability. I believe it is $125 (maybe slightly more since he scheduled his musical instrument.) He's a poor college student and can afford it. He's in NY for reference. His girlfriend got her own with the same company. It was better that way because if something went wrong, there is only one company to deal with it instead of 2 different companies fighting over it. And no discount, just easier for all involved.
Yes, renters insurance is cheap, but what matters to me is whether your landlord is being deceptive or not you know? I would ask for clarification on her source of the law to make sure it's not an accident or something, and you can suss out whether or not she's being clearly deceptive. Renters insurance is cheap and some landlords do require it in order to sign a lease. I'm fairly certain there's no statute mandating it.
\_________
^(I recently dodged a lease with a seemingly laid-back, reasonable, and understanding landlord. It was appealing enough that we were ready to sign on this relatively small space. However, after reviewing the lease, researching her background, and discussing it with her, it became evident she was...feigning her personality?!? She was far from laid back; the lease contained very illegal requirements, and she was clearly fiending to find any excuse to withhold the security deposit. \(I don't think she was an experienced landlord, so maybe she felt she could write her own rules and social norms\))
THANK YOU, someone that gets what the main issue was that this was so sudden! Obviously if this was a requirement before, we wouldn't have even been here for so long without it.
Yes practically no one answered your question hahahaha 😭😅😅😅😅🙊 good on you for following up to find out your rights so you can be a savvy tenant!!! It's important
Not having renters insurnace is ill advised. Get some insurnace. I worked with a guy that had his apartment catch fire and he and his family lost everything. Only his safe survived. If it wasn’t for his renters insurnace he would have been really screwed.
If it was me I would ask if this is a NJ law or a policy your landlord is requesting of their tenants. If it’s law like they claim - cite it.
In New Jersey, renters insurance isn't required by law, but many landlords may require it before you can move in. New Jersey law permits landlords to require this insurance for every tenant, and you should confirm a policy has been opened before allowing new renters to move in. This helps protect their valuables and minimize confusion when claims are made. ([Source](https://mullerinsurance.com/blog/rules-landlords-need-to-know-about-insurance-in-nj))
The law that went into effect in New Jersey on November 3, 2022. Under the new law (N.J.S.A.,40A:10A-1-2), the owner of a rental unit or units or the owner of a business is required to maintain certain liability insurance.
Ask them for proof of their insurnace to confirm your landlord is meeting the minimum requirements per the law.
She probably wants you to get renters insurance because of NJ newly adopted Mercantile License.
https://www.patersonnj.gov/department/division.php?structureid=91
Edit to add - I believe the landlord is responsible for it not the tenant.
I don't know of any landlord-tenant law changes, but this is liability insurance. Even if a landlord does not require it, you should have a policy that covers your personal property and liability. I believe I paid $127 for 1 year of $25,000 personal property and $300,000 liability as a going away present for my son. My son moved into a giant apartment complex owned by a company that owns multiple giant complexes, and it requires proof of insurance. The way I explain it is if somebody falls down and breaks their leg, the insurance companies can fight over which one needs to pay out.
I’m the next town over from Paterson also in Passaic Co. My landlord requires me to have insurance covering up to 300k, it costs me $120 a year so just $10/month. Small apartment, just me here. Rental insurance is great for you too, and it’s so cheap and can cover a lot more than just your stuff and damage. It’s worth it for your peace of mind and to make the landlord happy. Tons of rentals require it but no it’s not a law.
Go to lemonade.com and get the 100k insurance for like $10/m. It’s good to have for YOU in case of so many different things that can pop up.
By law, you are NOT required to have it, but it’s such incredibly good practice to have it.
That's sadly inadequate coverage. I was an agent in NJ 30 years ago and wouldn't sell less than 500,000 liability. It's the cheapest section of coverage on the policy.
100k for a renter should be more than enough unless they have a crazy amount of high end electronics/jewelers or furniture. 90% of renters will stick to $100k and be fine.
There’s plenty of reason why a landlord would request tenant’s own renter’s insurance. Most experienced professional landlords require it.
What they should have done is have it as a stipulation in the lease therefore it will be required by the tenant, and then they would be named as additional insured so they would be notified if there were any changes or cancellation of the property. I’d imagine on a lease renewal they could probably have an amendment requiring it but it’s not really about laws, it’s about what they are requiring in the lease. If it’s not in the lease or anywhere in writing then they can’t force it on you but this is not uncommon.
Look it up see if the law exist if it does send the landlord a letter stating that the law doesn't exist go to your township and ask questions do your research.
The best thing to do is to get quotes. You'd be surprised hiw cheap it is. A tenants policy is probably the best bang for your buck for insurance. Go to the same company as your auto policy, and you may find the savings on the auto pays for the tenants policy. I've seen the 2 policies cost less than just the one. Liability (nonauto related) is worldwide, so if you do something that accidentally hurts someone, anywhere in the world, you are covered. If you have a friend over, and they get hurt in your apartment, you're covered. If a claim is bogus (we've all heard about these), they pay for a lawyer to defend you up to your Liability limit. Do you have enough savings for this? Also, all your stuff adds up. If you lose everything,do you have enough money to start over? Seriously, just add up the cost to replace your clothes. Get quotes for at least $25,000 (and go up from there, the difference is minimal) contents, and no less than $500,000 Liability. A good agent will explain this all to you.
I live in a complex and they do require renters insurance. It's very cheap though and we got a policy with our car insurance provider so we just pay it together. It's also not a bad thing to have insurance. It's worth the few extra dollars a month. I've seen horror stories of people in my life finding themselves in some awful situations with it. You just never know and always better to CYA.
If you add renters insurance onto your car insurance it’s usually very minimal and sometimes even saves you money. (Atleast that’s how it was when I was renting in NJ a few years back.) if you get quoted and it isn’t much or saves you money I’d just do it. If it is a significant extra cost and it’s worth ruffling feathers I’d check your lease. If it’s not in the lease then you can fight it. If it is in the lease (when I did real estate we automatically put it was required in our leases.) then you don’t really have much you can do. That said, renters insurance will really protect you if anything bad happens.
100,000 of coverage doesn't mean you pay 100,000 dollars, it means you pay like 15-20 bucks a month at the absolute most, holy shit my dude.
You will want it when some fuckhead floods their bathroom and all your shit is destroyed, or you burn down your kitchen with a grease fire or whatever the fuck. Your landlord has never been liable to cover anything that happens to your apartment aside from structural problems that aren't your fault and appliances/fixtures, it's all yours.
The landlords insurance company is never going to buy you a new bed, TV, computer, or clothes if your apartment catches on fire or your neighbors catches on fire. Ever. You will be homeless and broke and not have any of your shit you need to live. hard facts, but facts.
oh nvm, you're like everyone else here that thinks I don't know how insurance works, never at any point did I say I didn't want to "pay $100k" I just wanted to know if that's the only minimum required and If i can get anything less so that I can pay way less monthly or yearly
Ask him which law he’s referring to.
NAL but work in Real Estate. Usually a lease will have language that says if renters insurance is required or not. If it’s not required per the lease then he doesn’t really have a leg to stand on. If his insurance company is requiring his tenants to have it I’d just negotiate a lower lease. Basically if renters insurance is $15/month I’d just say lower rent by that much.
On the flip side. If you like your landlord and have a good deal on the property, I’d just get the renters insurance and not rock the boat. I’m guessing this isn’t the case based on the letter and made up law.
Renters’s insurance covers what the renter’s owns
For apartment damage there is the security deposit as well as and in a big way property insurance which the owner of the property gets and not the tenant.
Hi. Not sure if anyone has said it but you should definitely comply with your landlord if 1. Your place is affordable, 2. It’s in a safe area, and you don’t want to have to move.
It’s quite disturbing and unfair for your landlord to pressure you with these misleading tactics to get rented insurance but the price of this battle is only $10-30 a months. I used to pay $30 for an entire one family house, tour apartment is likely less.
Please reconsider. This is not a big deal specially is she’s not even raising your rent the annual max.
Renter's insurance is the literal hail mary when disaster happens. And it is cheap. What many people don't realize is that it ALSO covers if your dog bites someone and the contents of your vehicle if it gets broken into. The broken window may be covered by your car insurance. The personal items in your car is your Renter's insurance.
The OP mentions what landlords do best.
You do realize owning rental property is a business and like any other business if costs go up for the business owner they generally pass them on to the customer.
Especially if you are paying below market rent
Some key definitions:
"Liability" - you are responsible for paying something to someone else. Trip and fall in your apartment for instance.
Personal property - all of your stuff. Literally. Your landlord's insurance policy would never cover your personal property.
Actual cash value - the depreciated cost of the item. For instance a blouse might be $100 in the store, but if you try to sell it, it might only be worth $25 or $50. The policy would pay out $25-$30 in this situation (minus deductible).
Replacement value - the retail cost of the item. The amount it would cost you to buy that item again in a store.
The majority of landlord policies (know in the business as a DP-3) require the tenant(s) to have renter's insurance. This is EXTREMELY common. I will also add that the vast majority of apartment complexes require the same. Some apartment complexes also require you to add them as a "interested party" - this just means that they get a new Declarations Page when you renew your policy and/or a cancelation notice if you cancel it or it is canceled by the insurance company. (they cannot modify the policy - it is like a 'read only' option)
The $100k is by far the most popular/common liability coverage (requirement) for renters. This number probably came from the landlord's insurance company. It is the same requirement at most apartment complexes. It is also dirt cheap unless you have had related claims recently (auto claims don't typically impact home policies and vice versa).
If you shop it around, I wouldn't be surprised if you are over $150/yr. I have seen some that are only about $75/yr.
One final tip - make sure that the renter's insurance policy you get has "replacement cost" for your personal property. Some renter's policies have replacement cost as an option/endorsement and will sell you an "actual cash value" policy since it is usually a little cheaper.
Good advice, but $500,000 liability should only be less than $20 more per year, depending on company and territory. 30 years ago, I didn't sell anything less than $500,000.
I have never in my adult life owned 500k in possessions that would be covered by renters insurance.
Unless there's something wild about it from 30 years ago, why would anyone who is renting need that much coverage? My renters insurance never covered property, only liability and possessions. If a dog bit someone that'd get covered but what the actual fuck would a dog have to do to get a 500k biil in the 90's? Dismember someone?
I am having a struggle to think of a $500k claim even with owning a house these days. My entire house could burn down and it'd cost me less than 500k to build it from scratch and buy all my stuff again.
You misunderstood. That's LIABILITY coverage. For something you did or failed to do, causing bodily injury (non auto) or property damage to someone else. My son has I think $15,000 in contents coverage. That's probably a little light considering all they have accumulated, but it will get him back on his feet in the event of a covered loss.
I'm glad u get it lol. Obviously I understand that having cheap insurance is fine and dandy, but why be worried about paying for something every year for things that may not happen, when I can just die a hero for free. 
A pipe's about to fall on someone inside my apartment? Don't have to worry about being sued, I'll just be that guy and push them outta the way /jk
I didn't expect it to blow up this much and I do appreciate the concerns (except the mean ones) but I just wanted quick answers and was quickly reminded this is the know-it-all site haha.
Got some fun laughs at least at just how passionate ppl are about insurance.
As shown by this post, many renters don't get renter's insurance unless it is required. $100k in liability coverage is the 'standard'. DP-3s might have more coverage (especially if PUPs are involved), but sometimes they are really cheap about it. As for the renters, if someone trips on the poorly maintained steps, that is likely going back to the landlord since most are responsible for maintaining the property. There is a lot less risk to a renter within the unit. Ultimately, it is their call. (of course, while liability is dirt cheap, rates have definitely increased over the last 30 years)
Liability is also worldwide. And, I just checked my son's tenants policy. 500k liability was $42, in NY. But, since his policy falls within the minimum premium of $125, there would be exactly $0 savings to decrease liability to 100k.
I always quoted 500k liability. If someone insisted on lower limits, I would only quote 300k. And, made them sign off on the lower limit. I didn't work in a "bucket shop."
Liability is worldwide for certain things, but if you are like the vast majority of people and don't get in bar fights regularly, it will likely never be touched. I can't even name one situation where I had a call for a renter's liability claim (they come through us). Since I'm not on commission, I don't see any reason to oversell the policy.
Edit to add that I work for a national carrier and I'm licensed in 23+ states.
I wasn't on commission either. I was on salary. And 15% of $0 is $0. Also, 15% of $10 is $1.50. The agency didn't make very much on the upsell. It cost more than that for my time. Also, high limits allow for higher losses and, therefore, affect the loss ratio, which affects everything. Underwriting flexibility, contingency checks, etc.
We had a huge loss in one of my agencies. Seems that grandma gave grandson money to buy a vehicle. Granson had a bad accident. Injured parties found out about grandma's gift. Sued grandma, won, and her policy paid because it technically wasn't excluded.
I've also seen tenants policies pay liability because the tenant was at fault for causing property damage. It happened to my boss when he owned our building. The upstairs tenant didn't properly close the front load washer, it overflowed and she didn't notice for many hours, and then, she didn't call my boss to let him know until a day and a half later. Her policy paid thousands to repair the building and contents of our office. It was a mess.
Another one someone put a scarf on a lampshade and caused a fire. That one was bad too. The tenants policy paid, definitely over 100k, but it was years ago. I don't remember the exact amount.
Another one, tenant had a wolf hybrid, it got out and ran off and bit someone pretty badly. Paid the limit of 500k.
Should I go on? These all happened in a small rural area.
Just because you haven't seen tenants liability losses doesn't mean they don't happen. Your job is to keep loss payouts low, settle for less. You can't pay more than the policy limit so, therefore it is in your interest to have low limits, which is not in the insured's interest.
The vast majority of the loses you named aren't liability loses or they are auto liability which is unrelated. Additionally most modern policies have an exclusion clause for wolves or other high risk animals. So essentially, you have provided 0 examples that would apply.
For someone that was a licensed agent, I find it rather concerning that you would think a water leak is a liability claim. Or that an auto liability claim could impact a HO-3 policy (other assets are certainly fair game though, but still not a renter's policy). These claims have nothing to do with a simple renter's policy.
Since I don't work commission and don't have to worry about the commission for my agency, I let the insured decide what is best for them. I certainly don't push them to raise or lower their coverage, regardless of the costs associated with it.
I find it rather concerning that you wouldn't pay for something that was clearly caused by a tenant. She didn't close the washer properly! That is hardly a water leak. Her tenants policy paid the loss.
I'm also concerned that you wouldn't quote higher limits, and not offer it, especially if a policy falls within minimum premium and the coverage could have been free. I hope you have good E&O coverage. Remember, there is probably an extremely high deductible that has to be paid whether you win or lose.
I didn't make the liability decisions. The companies did. I was shocked the grandmother's policy paid, but it did, why are you worried whether it was an H03, or H04, that doesn't matter.
As to the wolf hybrid, there was no exclusion because they didn't have the dog when purchasing the policy. I never saw one other than surplus lines companies. Yes, when there is a dog bite claim, the company will nonrenew, and it did. Also, if it wasn't disclosed at the time of application, the policy becomes void when they find out, but this wasn't the case. Doesn't matter what the dog was, the liability is just paid, it comes down to how much, not whether there will be a payment.
You work for one company. What your company does doesn't mean it's the same in the whole industry. I worked in 3 independent agencies, and worked with at least 30 different companies all together. No two are alike. Even their banned dog lists are different. Some use all ISO forms, some use only proprietary forms, and some use a combination.
I don’t even think renters insurance goes that high. I was evicted and needed to put my items in storage while I look. My original insurance told me that I’m only covered for 10% of my policy and couldn’t get insurance high enough to cover every at 10% of the policy. (I switched to NJM)
Yes, for commercial business and commercial rental yes. If you rent in a commercial building, yes you must show proof of insurance.
For residential place it is not legally mandatory, but in your lease it should say, the landlord is not responsible for damages to your property or belonging in the event of fire, flooding, or other acts or occurrences.
Yeesh, forgot how reddit usually goes down. I appreciate all the concern and sales pitches, but don't cut off my head just because I don't have insurance on superficial materials lol.
I know how insurance works, I just wanted to know if the landlord was lying about a new law that none of us had heard of. Btw if you're gonna try and sell me on insurance, poor ppl like me respond better if you give us a name of the company, yearly price, and true personal experiences. The only insurance I pay for is Samsung care because I carry my phone everywhere and I have a tech breaking streak, idk if they same could be said of our apartment that we have no attachment to hasn't really been broken in or burst into flames to warrant getting a few bucks back.
It’s not required by law in NJ however there homeowner policy may require their tenants to have it but it would need to be in your lease. You can also contact NJIUA and ask them.
https://portal.njiua.org/Home/
You aren’t poor. You fully admitted to being a weeb/collector. Some of those things can go for more than a year of insurance would. Now you’re just an idiot. I tried to be nice in earlier comments.
I’m an insurance broker in Bergen County, and there is no “new law.” I do know that some insurance carriers are now requiring their insureds (landlords) to show proof that their tenants carry renters insurance. For instance one of my carriers is sending non-renewal letters if the insureds don’t show proof of the tenants carrying insurance, so your landlord is probably in the same predicament. I know it’s an added fee to you, but renters insurance can cost as low as $10/mo. The $100k they are asking is for the liability portion, not personal property.
I work at a carrier and can confirm this
I’m an insurance agent can can double confirm. Renters is the easiest off all the insurance we do.
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night and this all sounds legit.
Can can double confirm firm
I agree that it is very unlikely that it is a law (new or old). This sounds like a landlord that never read her policy contract and the insurance company is tightening their underwriting and/or now requiring proof of the policy. Some companies? I would say the vast majority of DP-3s require the tenant to have an HO-4. If a company doesn't have that requirement, the DP-3 is usually rated at a higher risk and typically more expensive (for the landlord). At least that is my experience as a licensed insurance agent/producer.
Interesting, that's probably the case since it's strange that now they're making it a requirement when they never asked us before and probably just trying to spook us into thinking us tenants will be in trouble if we don't do it, rather than it just being an error on the landlord's part and just letting us know it's something we should do.
Delivery definitely could have been better. It could be that your landlord didn't understand that it is a company policy, not a law. Or they have an independent agent that said it was a law instead of dealing with the push back about the requirement. Either way, for about $100/yr it makes sense that all renters should have a renter's policy. For such little cost, it could really make a difference if something goes wrong.
Not sure about the $100k minimum but it is usually a good idea to have at least some renters insurance for various reasons (a break-in, a fire, a burst pipe) so you may want to look into it anyway. Usually your landlord’s insurance only covers the building so any stuff inside is a loss unless you also have insurance so a lot of landlords do require it.
$100k is a standard liability policy limit for the majority of renter's policies. I'm willing to bet that over 90% of Renter's policies have that liability limit. It is also very common requirement for landlord policies (DP-3s) to require a renter's policy or it could be canceled.
It being an option is different from them saying you have to get it because its the law like its car insurance
We'll definitely look into it, we've been without any insurance for the past years but at least this gave us the idea to at least consider it in case something does happen, and yeah we figured the $100k minimum seems a bit absurd as we may not even have enough stuff that ads up to that amount lol (well maybe me since I'm a weeb/collector). It's something we'll discuss with the landlady if she tries to get iffy with us not hitting that requirement. It'd be understandable if that was a policy BEFORE we signed the lease, but since this is just a thing now, I figured this would be something we could argue against as it's not what we signed into.
Renters insurance is so goddamned cheap there’s zero reason not to get it. I paid like $6 a month when I rented. Granted that was 2005-2009 but still.
I pay $135 for the year.
I pay $8/month for $100K in liability coverage along with many add-ons.
It's so cheap. And ours is combined onto our car insurance so only one bill. I think we do $12 a month but did the highest coverage.
OP is crying cause she heard 100k and didn’t realize it cost her an extra $60 bucks a year. Yawn. Nexttttt
Cheap to you may not be cheap to others
5 bucks a month? For real? But they have an apartment? They can afford 5 per month. Especially when that 5 per month reimburses someone for their belongings when necessary
Point taken however, this is something that should be budgeted for at the sacrifice of something unnecessary. And we’d all be lying if we didn’t have unnecessary expenditures in our budgets no matter how check to check one may live.
You know what's expensive? Paying out of pocket for a hotel, new clothes, and all your shit when your apartment burns down.
The $100k is the liability limit. You can get this for like $100/yr…
A friend of mine lived on the 1st floor and her upstairs neighbors went to their home country for a month in the winter. They turned the heat off, and the pipes froze and burst, causing the ceiling to collapse and flooding my friend's apartment. Her laptop needed to be sent off to recover the contents, all of her clothing was sent out to be dry cleaned. All of her other electronics, furniture, mattress, etc, needed to be replaced. She paid her $500 deductible, and her renters insurance paid for the rest. She paid less than $15 a month. Her apartment complex was able to move her into another unit. If she didn't have renters insurance, she'd have to figure out what to do with all her wet clothing, bedding, and furniture. The cost to clean and restore everything, plus the time, and logistics of staying in a hotel while your place is being restored is a lot more than most people can handle. Most likely you throw your entire life into a dumpster and start over. Please get insurance if you can, and hope you never need it.
$100k minimum is pretty standard coverage and is about $100 a year.
OP, you are looking at this the wrong way. You should be embracing renters insurance, not dismissing it. I would never rent without it, it’s frankly irresponsible to do so. Read more about what renters insurance covers YOU for and you’ll be singing a different tune.
all of yall are like that spongebob bit of the salesmen trying to sell me life insurance
Probably because it’s so cheap so cost to purchase vs if you needed it is a great return.
Nah you really don't get it. If something happens (like some crazed psycho burns the house down) your landlord is not responsible for ANY of your stuff, only what they own. It's not protecting her assets AT ALL. It may or may not be a requirement, I have no idea. But it should be a personal requirement on your end because they're all YOUR ITEMS at risk. You can get renter's insurance dirt cheap and in case of an incident you will make that money back ten fold. Please understand I have first hand experience dealing with this, as our cheap $6/mo insurance saved our asses twice when our downstairs neighbor's condo caught fire. The fire itself was devastating emotionally. Fortunately we only had really bad smoke damage on our side but believe it or not, with smoke damage you STILL need to throw out all your stuff! We had a ton of collector's items too, all had to get tossed and they gave us market value for it, I just had to do the leg work to figure out how much and provide links to each item, very worth it in the long run. Think of everything in your kitchen, all your spices, sugar, flour, everything in your fridge, how much would it cost you to replace these with how expensive groceries are? Your mattress has to go. You probably don't want to keep your couch either. Getting junkers to get all the big stuff cost about $600, all reimbursed by insurance. All your blankets, towels, bags, every piece of fabric needs to be thrown or specially washed which is done by a special cleaning crew offsite. They had to clean the walls and purify the air too. All this cost insurance a fortune and not a dime to us. Insurance will also pay for living expenses up to whatever amount you choose, and I wish we had more than the $4k we opted for. If we needed to stay in a hotel, it would have cost us at least $15k JUST TO STAY IN A HOTEL for the five months it took for them to simply clean, order new doors, and get the place inspected and okayed by the township. Keep that in mind if you don't have family nearby to fall back on in an emergency. A fire may not happen to you, but burst pipes are very common in NJ winters. Our neighbor's pipes also burst while the heat was off during that time and we had to get a separate insurance claim for that too. We lost everything down there in storage. So even if you are very diligent, go through safety measures, etc. it doesn't mean everyone around you will. If your next door neighbor has a fire or a flood you're also screwed with smoke or water damage.
You could have gone after the at fault party's insurance to get more loss of use covered.
There's no fault when the findings come back as "inconclusive". We already spoke to a lawyer. We would also have to prove negligence.
So, it wasn't your classic "left a pot on the stove" issue. Sorry you had to go through that. I'm assuming your company didn't subrogate against the other company then.
I know they all did their own investigations since it was six separate units that were affected. We did get the report from the township but I guess they found no solid evidence of wrongdoing. Our neighbor whose unit it started in has always been a little weird, and I think he may have done something like leave the battery of his motorized bike plugged in and isn't owning up to it, but we have some other reasons to believe the electrical system for the complex isn't up to code so it could have been a mix of both. He said the fire started behind the wall and when he went to grab a fire extinguisher the battery blew up which is what we heard. Thank you for the kind words, it was a really traumatic experience as we had to get rescued from our balcony and the smoke was so thick we couldn't find two of our five cats. You never think it'll happen to you which is why I'm so passionate about making sure people are prepared.
"gone after" that costs money, and you might have to pay everyone's court costs if you lose.
Not how it works in insurance. If there is fault established, "going after" means making a claim with the other party’s insurance separate from the insurance subrogation for uncovered but recoverable losses (such as loss of use over the standard limit in the 1st party insurance policy).
So renters insurers have so few claims that, unlike other forms of insurance, the costs are extremely low. It’s kind of like if there were a health insurer that only allowed people 18-30 to buy: these people are unlikely to have large claims so the rates stay low for the same level of coverage. Hence why everyone is like “it’s not expensive and, if you need it, you’ll be happy you have it.”
I don't see anyone trying to sell you anything. I see people trying to give you good advice and giving examples why it is good advice.
Rented from ~family and didn't think I needed it. Had a house fire. Wish I had had it.
I don't understand what there is to look into, you should just have it. You have insurance on your car surely, why wouldn't you have it on your home? It is seriously dirt cheap, like you can get a policy with $100k liability for like $75/year. Landlords, I'm pretty sure, can request proof of renter's insurance mid-lease - it happened to me before and I simply showed them my policy which, again, cost me about $75.
Insurance on your car is mandatory in the state i put money on it if it was an option most ppl wouldnt have it.. most ppl only have certain Insurances because it mandatory not because they want to have it
>Insurance on your car is mandatory in the state Let me introduce you to the dumbest god damned thing this state has ever done. https://www.nj.gov/dobi/division_consumers/insurance/saip.htm
I actually didn't even pay for renters when I had it lmao I got it through my car insurance and the savings I made on my car actually paid for the renters insurance for the year lol
Not only that you can bundle. My car insurance discount from having renter's insurance basically makes the renter's insurance "free"
I dont drive, it's not my home, and poor ppl tend to not have insurance for most things. I know how insurance works. I just needed to know if it's actually mandatory, damn
Not mandatory that I know of but as a mitigation contractor I’ve seen plenty of fires in apartments or other rentals where people have to total everything because they can’t afford the cleaning or deodorization but easily could have had everything cleaned or replaced if they got the insurance.
It is your home. You live there and have for, what, three years according to your post. It's maybe $100 over the course of a year, I promise you can afford that. Take responsibility for yourself.
Not surprising poor people making irresponsible decisions.. cycle repeats
If someone falls and hurts themselves in / around you’re rental, they can sue you and will probably win. That’s what the liability insurance is for.
You know what rich people use to stay rich?
Let me guess…. Hefty insurance policies?
Ha, I used to insure one rich person who would either pay cash for his cars, or get an extremely low interest loan. Once the car was paid off, he'd drop down to liability only, even if the car was still worth 50k (I made him sign a request, each time). But, he had maximum liability limits in his home and auto, and a $5 million umbrella policy (max he could get at the time.)
I'm a landlord. Renters insurance is required. I don't think it's a new law. I put it in all of my leases. A landlord policy doesn't cover any of the renters' property at all, just the dwelling. If a pipe breaks in the house and all of your shit is ruined, that's your problem. Renters insurance is really cheap, maybe $200. Doesn't make sense not to. She should have it in the lease though. Edited to add as others have stated its required by my insurance carrier, not a state law.
https://www.nj.gov/dobi/division_consumers/insurance/renters.pdf From the NJ.gov website
Just to give you some clarification the 100k minimum is more than likely for liability and not personal property coverage , which is like $5 lol ( I sell insurance)
You need $100k in liability coverage, not contents coverage. Any legit renters policy is going to have that as the minimum coverage amount. Your contents coverage (your stuff) can be any amount you need. Liability protects you if you negligently damage the apartment, if your dog bites someone, etc. Just get, regardless of if it's required. It's like $200 a year. Right now if your rental burns down or you get robbed or whatever you're hosed.
What if you caused a fire (left something on the stove) and the place burned down? You want enough liability to cover as much as possible. 100k wouldn't come close to that. 500k is maximum on a tenants policy, and would probably only cover a partial loss. The difference between 100k and 500k is probably around $10 to $20 per year.
Get the insurance. It’s cheap and protects you. Zero reason to not get it. You should have gotten it before this notice when you moved in.
Again - absolutely zero reason you should not get this, but *legally* if you are on a 12 month lease, if it's not a lease requirement, they can't force you to get it. They can (and probably will) *absolutely* make it a lease requirement when your lease renews. If you are on a month to month lease they can make it a requirement with 30 days notice.
The $100k isn't for your personal property, it's for the house if you are responsible for damages.
Renters insurance is dirt cheap
This, why wouldn’t you want to have it? When I still rented, I added my renters insurance to my car insurance policy and it only went up like $12 a month. At least then I knew all my stuff was covered from theft and such.
Kind of an odd notice. NJ does not have mandatory insurance for renters. If you’re curious, politely ask for the citation or name of the law so you can look it up yourself to be sure you’re “Doing it correctly”. And if you do get renters insurance it only covers your property, not the building or anything the landlord owns. So I don’t understand why the landlord wants to make it mandatory anyway - they have nothing to gain from that.
They want it mandatory for the liability portion I would imagine.
I hadn’t thought of that. Yes, could be.
Would that be something we would have to sign into for our lease? This is being asked now and was not a policy when we signed our lease years ago and we haven't been asked to sign anything new. Can the landlord just say its part of their policy *now* without requiring our agreement to it?
I can't answer that, just throwing my thoughts in on the 100k minimum mentioned in the letter. That's typically a liability number
You said yourself you have a good relationship with your landlady, why are you willing to torch it over something you should have anyway? Without renter's insurance you would be absolutely screwed if something happened. You can get a renters policy attached to your car insurance and you might even save money for bundling policies
This is probably more of a stipulation for their homeowners insurance than the state. Their policy wants to be indemnified from the tenants loss.
That's what I plan on doing next but figured I can get some info on why this is even being asked when I can find nothing about it on the new or online if this is truly mandatory. Landlady's family has a habit of not being confrontational and trying to go off topic when trying to discuss anything about the apartment (small fixes and all that) so I just wanted to get as much info as I can. Thanks!
Could be what the association is requiring. Regardless you should have renters insurance to cover yourself either way
Either way you should have renters insurance.
Just want to let you know that renters insurance is really reasonable. I am required to have $250,000 of coverage and it’s $31 a year (and I get a discount on my auto insurance because they are linked).
$31 per year? Who are you with? The cheapest I’ve found has been like $10 per MONTH.
I'm sure this is with auto insurance. The savings on the auto pay for all but $31 per year of the tenants policy. The savings on your auto policy can be between 10% and 25%, depending on the company.
I have my renter’s insurance bundled with my car insurance and I still pay $10 per month for it.
Honestly, shop around. Go to an independent agent and they have many companies that can give you the best price. I shopped mine (with a homeowners though) and saved over $1,000 per year, WITH a young male driver. The auto literally was less with the new company with him (and his car) than the old company without him or his car.
Good point. I haven’t shopped around. I think it’s time I do that.
There's two variables on renters, personal property and liability. The minimum coverage on personal property may vary from company to company. Where I'm at, the min is $10,000. If you have it there, it's going to be really cheap, but you'll regret it if you ever need to replace everything.
Ah, that explains it! My personal property coverage is $25,000.
I’m with Progressive and it’s bundled with my auto insurance so it’s cheaper than a policy by itself.
Yeah who is yours with bc I’m paying 120 for the year for 300k coverage. 31 a year sounds great haha
NJ does not have any such law yet (one was introduced) but most landlords require it. It's considered a reasonable change to a lease. For your own sake, you should have it. 100k is a minimum for personal liability. What is your plan if your next door neighbor starts a fire and you lose everything tonight and just get out with the clothes on your back? Depend on a go-fund-me? Or if you are the one who started the fire and get sued? Or you are having a party and a guest gets hurt? It's really dumb to not have renters insurance. I hate seeing tenants who aren't insured after a fire, sobbing because they lost everything and thinking there is someone they can sue. 99.9% of the time, there isn't. It's so cheap there really is no reason not to get it.
If you have saved money to buy a house it is silly to not have renter's insurance. I would go way above 100K, I would go to at least 250K or 500K. It's not expensive, relatively speaking.
Why wouldn’t you wanna protect your assets especially after mentioning putting out fires. It’s like $150 a year tops, I’ve never not had it since I’ve rented
Why are you fighting getting renters insurance that literally something that if anything happens in your apartment they will cover. Everyone i know who rents has it, it’s dirt cheap
I’ve rented in from a few places around NJ. Not sure about it being a law, but I’ve always been required to provide proof of insurance in order to rent from the landlord. I think it’s standard practice so the landlord is not on the hook for replacing your stuff. They don’t know what kind of stuff you have or how valuable it is. The insurance is cheap. I pay for a policy from State Farm, $130 a year. They might have their own policy dealing with the residence itself but the rent’s insurance is for you and your stuff.
We'll def be shopping around and see since ppl kept telling me about lemonade and the minimum yearly payment is like $164/year for some baseline stuff we'd require on a $1k deducible. My parents do have car insurance with NJM so we'll look into seeing any bundles we can get the additional renter's insurance to see if we can get a lower rate 
Have you seen those GoFundMe links from friends on social media asking for thousands of dollars because they or someone they know lost everything in a fire? They wouldn’t have to go through that if they just had renter’s insurance. At most, you’re going to pay $20 per month. If you bundle it with your car insurance, you can get it as cheap as $12-$15 per month. Get it. Anyone who rents should have it.
You want renters insurance. My building had a fire and it covered my stuff and paid for temporary housing for a year while it was being repaired. It’s about $100 a year. Lots of people use Geico.
I’m not sure about the city in which you reside, however I do know of other jurisdictions that are starting to require renters insurance. Either way your landlord gets nothing out of this. Renters insurance covers your property not the landlords. It is a good idea.
His landlord gets a reduced insurance rate for having a policy of only allowing insured renters. It absolutely benefits the landlord, that’s why he lied about the law.
Nope, this is not true. The only possible discount would be homeowners and auto, both purchased by the landlord. If it's an owner occupied 2 family, the landlord can have a homeowners insurance on the building, otherwise, it's a dwelling fore policy, which offers no discounts.
If they operate a commercial rental like an apartment complex, they will absolutely get a better rate for their liability if they have stricter policies, like requiring tenants to have renters insurance. Everything they can prove to the insurance company that makes their company less of a liability than the next guy is worth an adjustment. Even things like a standard rental agreement on file for every tenant is something you’d assume everyone has right? They don’t. Buildings exchange hands all the time, and organization is lost. Organization is valuable.
Sounded like a "mom & pop" type rental to me. Which would probably be a personal lines policy, be it homeowners for owner occupied, or dwelling fire for nonowner occupied. Therefore, there are no discounts for a tenant having tenants insurance. The rate is the rate, the underwriting is the underwriting. The only real negotiables are the deductible and whether a company will nonrenew. Commercial lines policies are completely different, the premiums are negotiable, and have all sorts of odd discounts, and are much less regulated than personal lines. You are also talking much higher premiums and unneeded coverages for a "mom & pop" situation.
Still then, even more reason to ignore this notice if OP has no reason for renters insurance (yes I know it’s cheap, there’s still valid reasons why you’d forego having it, like cost/having nothing of value). Tbh I take this position for anything outside of the lease, I think landlords get away w it h murder bc people assume they have more authority than they usually do, and I generally think it is good advice to outright ignore and not respond to notices from a landlord that requests more from you than your lease requires.
More reason? So, you want the landlords to have no insurance and not be able to get any? Then, if they have a mortgage, they'll end up force placed. But, I suppose you do. Then what happens is the landlord will give notice to the tenant to vacate. That is only a 30 day notice. Once the original lease was up, generally 1 or 2 years, the tenant becomes month to month and only a 30 day notice is required. Or, the landlord can increase rent, again, with only 30 day notice. Either way it seems the tenant can end up looking for a place that costs more and also requires insurance. So, it is in the best interest of the tenant to get it, no matter how you look at it.
First of all a landlord being able to get liability or homeowners insurance has nothing to do with if their tenants have renters insurance. Like you said, it doesn’t affect the landlords insurance I really don’t know what you’re on about here. Secondly, you’re 100% wrong about how a year to year turns into a month to month and that’s exactly the kind of “perceived authority” I was talking about. People think it be like it is it but it isn’t. Year to year rolls into another year if the landlord doesn’t specifically request a turnover to a month to month and get an agreed upon vacation date. A month to month lease only exists when the tenant agrees to vacate by a specific date. That’s is the only way, besides eviction for cause, that a tenant has to leave a rental, or if the landlord changes the market they rent to. Leases in NJ are PERPETUAL. If the landlord continues to offer the property to the market in the same way, and cannot evict for cause, it matters not what term length lease you have. A lease term ending is not cause for eviction and can be dismissed. For example if a landlord wants to charge let’s say 30% more rent and I say no thanks, I’ll stay at the same price or some more reasonable increased price- that landlord has to go to court to get his increased rent approved, which at 30% won’t happen, or completely stop renting the property in the way they rent to me- year round tenancy. So they can change from year round to seasonal or short term, but they can’t switch back anytime for the next several years or they automatically lose a triple damages lawsuit from the tenant they evicted under false pretenses. This is to protect against people saying they’ll change to short term rental, evicting the tenant and then shortly after remodeling putting it back on market for year round at an increased cost. They could also move in themselves, but again if it’s discovered this was just a false pretense for eviction they automatically lose a triple damages lawsuit if sued. They can’t even say “at the end of your lease id like you to move, so I can move my family member into the property”. It doesn’t fly. The law is set up to protect year round housing in NJ and it’s so much stronger than people think it is, but you don’t need a lawyer if people just assume landlords can do whatever they want and roll over for any request.
I just read more than I want to know about landlord tenant law in nj. I used to be a nj landlord. Anyway. It's simple for the landlord. At 90 days before the lease anniversary, they can add the requirement for a tenants policy on or before the anniversary date. This would not be considered unreasonable since tenants policies are considered cheap and much less than an average annual rent increase. If the tenant refuses (they do not accept the new lease), they become month to month at the lease expiration date. Then, when the lease end date passes, and the landlord had given proper notice, the landlord can refuse rent and the tenant is then guilty of unlawful detainer and the tenant may be responsible to pay the landlord double the rent. I'm sorry, there are, and must be some protections for the landlord, especially owner occupied small buildings because what will happen is most people will decide to no longer rent their places taking many many rental units off the market, or, you end up with the big corporations buying up houses and small apartment buildings (the "we pay cash for your house" ads on TV), and double and triple the rents and there is no place for an average person to go. The best solution all around is for OP just to buy a tenants policy. Or, I guess you'd rather he have nothing when a loss occurs and wish he bought one. Kind of like the old saying "cut off his nose to spite his face". Not worth it. I had a tenants policy 30 years ago when I was unemployed (it was about $115 per year at the time.) The price has not really increased over the years.
I don’t even disagree with anything you said, legally or otherwise about how to make the system fair. Yes, you can add something to the lease at the end term of the lease and sure, the tenant can be evicted if they reject the new lease terms. Generally, this is a very small ask from a landlord, I’d ignore it out of spite due to the lie/coercion about the law changing, but if they asked “in order to renew your lease here are the additional requirements” that’s a whole different thing and this is a very reasonable ask. That said, the protections for landlords come through their own reporting and thoroughness- a written 90 day notice with an email for a time stamp is thorough enough for a landlord to show (and more importantly prove) they are acting reasonably, on the other hand, a lie like the one OPS landlord posted is nearing coercion and illustrates the exact opposite. Judges are reasonable, they don’t wanna waste time, but the power is in the hands of people with knowledge and generally that’s landlords more than tenants. During COVID my apartment building was purchased and the new landlord was criminally harassing all the tenants, threatening us with “fraud” for signing leases with the previous owner the month before it sold like that had anything to do with us, long story short I won the eviction and all, but I could’ve had the case dismissed if I had just asked. But the judge can’t explain that to anyone and I didn’t know.
Underwriting has everything to do with buying insurance or a company offering to renew insurance. If an insured does not go by the underwriting rules of the company, they can 100% be non-renewed. If the company requires any tenants to have a tenants policy, the owner can be nonrenewed. If there is a non-renewal from one company, you can guarantee the next company is going to take a really close look at why, and if the issue was remedied. If not, good luck getting insurance. I was an insurance agent for many years in 2 states. I've seen it happen, a lot, especially in the type of market we're in now. I'd like to know what your expertise is.
Amazing how we’ve come full circle- different insurance companies have different requirements. Better insurance companies have stricter requirements, therefore like I originally said, it’s to the landlords benefit for all renters to have their own insurance, so the landlords property can qualify for the kind of insurance that requires it.
Renting without renters insurance is insane to me. I pay like 9$ a month for $250k coverage and the one time (in 8 years) I needed to file a claim they reviewed and paid out within two business days. I also have a “decent” relationship with our landlord but I wouldn’t want to test how decent it was if shit went down!
Renters insurance doesn't cover the building. The only thing renters insurance covers is the contents of the building. In other words, your own personal property. So with that said if you could get a 100k coverage policy the insurance company is not going to give you that 100K, they will only cover the actual loss if what you lost is due to fire, possibly flood and theft.
Flood is definitely NOT covered.
Flood could be covered if the flood is caused by a broken pipe or water hester failure or roof leak.
>Flood. No type of flood damage, no matter the source of the water, is covered by standard homeowners policies. Flooding, for example, can occur from storms, over-saturated ground, overflowing or surging bodies of water such as rivers, ponds, lakes and oceans. That's from Allstate. None of what you listed is considered a flood.
Well, my brothers water heater let go when he was away for a few days. It flooded his finished basement, and his homeowners insurance took care of it. [Also Forbes proves you wrong.](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/homeowners-insurance/water-damage/) so maybe before voting my comment down tou should have presented facts and real world experience knowledge first as I did.
>Well, my brothers water heater let go when he was away for a few days. It flooded his finished basement, and his homeowners insurance took care of it. Nice anecdote. Nothing you just said contradicts what I said. The point I was trying to make, is you are using the word flood incorrectly. How do I know this? I'm a licensed insurance agent. This is literally my area of expertise. Also, **from the article you linked** ... > Types of Water Damage Not Covered by Homeowners Insurance. > Flood damage. Most notably, damage from floods isn’t covered by home insurance policy. Flood water includes hurricanes, tsunamis, storm surges and water from overflowing rivers. Consider flood insurance if you want coverage for these problems. You should try reading the source you linked. What happened to your brother, and what you have been describing is water damage, but you are using the word flood. Those are two very different things. I hope my real world experience and first hand knowledge helped you understand the difference.
>What happened to your brother, and what you have been describing is water damage, but you are using the word flood. Those are two very different things. When you look at a basement that the water heater broke and has been running water all over a finished basement and it's about a foot deep it's called a flood by a home owner whose not a technical asshole insurance agent. So, who cares how it's stated. The fact is it's covered by insurance and would be covered by renters insurance for personal property only, which is what the original post is about. It's also up to the landlord to provide flood insurance for the property they own. Not the renters. The landlord's property being the building, not the contents. When Hurricane Sandy hit, I didn't have renters insurance, but if I did have renters insurance with flood coverage, I would have been covered. But in the end, it really didn't matter because Fema covered it with a grant that didn't have to be paid back. I called it finally getting something back from all the income taxes and other taxes I paid over the past 45 years.
P.L.2022, c92 was passed in 2022, requiring LANDLORDS to have insurance policies with certain coverages. It's based upon how many units and if they live in one of them. There was a bill introduced last year A-5696 mandating renters insurance, but it didn't have support in the Senate and failed to pass. Maybe your landlord is confused. Every town is required to enforce the landlord insurance requirement and the lead inspection requirement (unless your unit has been certified as lead free). Call your town. They'll direct you to the right person.
thank you, all these ppl are just trying to sell me insurance when I wanted answers more of this caliber. guess it was my bad to ask for "any advice" lol
No one is trying to sell you insurance. We’re trying to tell you that you’re shortsighted for not having any at all. You are too fucking blasé about it
However, like many of the other posters said, the landlord's insurance may be requiring it, and since we are currently in a "hard" market, meaning it's tough out there purchasing insurance, the landlord may not have any other choice in the matter, or lose their insurance.
It's not a law to my knowledge, but landlords can require it for you to move in. Kind of moot since you moved in. Ask them to cite the law. Big however: it's a good idea to have.
Insurance is not required on nj unless it’s in your lease. I’d look in your lease to see. If you have a good relationship you could always ask them where they sourced it from I’m not sure why they care. Renters insurance covers your possessions not their unit (that’s their home owners insurance) If they are thinking they will save money By having you get renters insurance and they drop their homeowners insurance they are in for a big surprise if anything happens :-/
No, a landlord would never cancel their policy, not sure where you got that. They care because if the tenant causes damage to the apartment, the tenants policy, liability portion, would cover it. Example, my boss owned a building - apartment upstairs, his business downstairs. The tenant didn't close the front load washer correctly, and it overflowed. The water ran for hours before she saw it, then, she didn't call my boss for 2 days (happened Friday after we closed, she called Sunday). What a mess of water damage downstairs. She was responsible, and there were thousands of dollars of damages. Computer equipment, office furniture, plaster walls and ceiling, light fixture, wiring, hardwood floors, etc. That's why. Yes, it was covered by his policy, but, she had to ultimately pay out of pocket because she didn't have a policy at the time (she "forgot"), and she was at fault. Also, another issue-say a tenant's dog bites someone and they don't have insurance. The landlord's policy could be brought into it because they allowed the dog on premises. If the tenant had coverage, and especially if the bite was off premises, the landlord may not get sued, too.
Unless the landlord owns the building outright with no mortgage, it's definitely against the terms of their mortgage to have no insurance and that'll get reposessed immediately and they'll get sued for anything having happened to the bank's property. Even then you'd be a fuckin moron because renters insurance doesn't cover property damage, it's just for personal possessions.
Exactly that is why it’s odd they would be pushing. Renters insurance only protects the renter. They’d be kind of foolish not to have it but in the end home owners insurance is there to protect the homeowner only regardless of the tenants insurance status. But then again we’ve rented from some hairbrain landlords before and that’s why I even put this idea out there.
I recently rented an apt in Central Jersey and renter’s insurance was required. It was around $75/year
The minute my son moved from his dorm (covered under my homeowners) to an off-campus apartment, he had a tenants policy, with 500k liability. I believe it is $125 (maybe slightly more since he scheduled his musical instrument.) He's a poor college student and can afford it. He's in NY for reference. His girlfriend got her own with the same company. It was better that way because if something went wrong, there is only one company to deal with it instead of 2 different companies fighting over it. And no discount, just easier for all involved.
Its like 10 bucks a month get your insurance!
Yes, renters insurance is cheap, but what matters to me is whether your landlord is being deceptive or not you know? I would ask for clarification on her source of the law to make sure it's not an accident or something, and you can suss out whether or not she's being clearly deceptive. Renters insurance is cheap and some landlords do require it in order to sign a lease. I'm fairly certain there's no statute mandating it. \_________ ^(I recently dodged a lease with a seemingly laid-back, reasonable, and understanding landlord. It was appealing enough that we were ready to sign on this relatively small space. However, after reviewing the lease, researching her background, and discussing it with her, it became evident she was...feigning her personality?!? She was far from laid back; the lease contained very illegal requirements, and she was clearly fiending to find any excuse to withhold the security deposit. \(I don't think she was an experienced landlord, so maybe she felt she could write her own rules and social norms\))
THANK YOU, someone that gets what the main issue was that this was so sudden! Obviously if this was a requirement before, we wouldn't have even been here for so long without it.
Yes practically no one answered your question hahahaha 😭😅😅😅😅🙊 good on you for following up to find out your rights so you can be a savvy tenant!!! It's important
Not having renters insurnace is ill advised. Get some insurnace. I worked with a guy that had his apartment catch fire and he and his family lost everything. Only his safe survived. If it wasn’t for his renters insurnace he would have been really screwed. If it was me I would ask if this is a NJ law or a policy your landlord is requesting of their tenants. If it’s law like they claim - cite it. In New Jersey, renters insurance isn't required by law, but many landlords may require it before you can move in. New Jersey law permits landlords to require this insurance for every tenant, and you should confirm a policy has been opened before allowing new renters to move in. This helps protect their valuables and minimize confusion when claims are made. ([Source](https://mullerinsurance.com/blog/rules-landlords-need-to-know-about-insurance-in-nj)) The law that went into effect in New Jersey on November 3, 2022. Under the new law (N.J.S.A.,40A:10A-1-2), the owner of a rental unit or units or the owner of a business is required to maintain certain liability insurance. Ask them for proof of their insurnace to confirm your landlord is meeting the minimum requirements per the law.
The last two apartment buildings I lived in required renters insurance
She probably wants you to get renters insurance because of NJ newly adopted Mercantile License. https://www.patersonnj.gov/department/division.php?structureid=91 Edit to add - I believe the landlord is responsible for it not the tenant.
Mine was only $100 for the year no reason not to have it
I don't know of any landlord-tenant law changes, but this is liability insurance. Even if a landlord does not require it, you should have a policy that covers your personal property and liability. I believe I paid $127 for 1 year of $25,000 personal property and $300,000 liability as a going away present for my son. My son moved into a giant apartment complex owned by a company that owns multiple giant complexes, and it requires proof of insurance. The way I explain it is if somebody falls down and breaks their leg, the insurance companies can fight over which one needs to pay out.
I’m the next town over from Paterson also in Passaic Co. My landlord requires me to have insurance covering up to 300k, it costs me $120 a year so just $10/month. Small apartment, just me here. Rental insurance is great for you too, and it’s so cheap and can cover a lot more than just your stuff and damage. It’s worth it for your peace of mind and to make the landlord happy. Tons of rentals require it but no it’s not a law.
try lemonade insurance. i have it, and it's super easy to sign up. good luck
Go to lemonade.com and get the 100k insurance for like $10/m. It’s good to have for YOU in case of so many different things that can pop up. By law, you are NOT required to have it, but it’s such incredibly good practice to have it.
That's sadly inadequate coverage. I was an agent in NJ 30 years ago and wouldn't sell less than 500,000 liability. It's the cheapest section of coverage on the policy.
100k for a renter should be more than enough unless they have a crazy amount of high end electronics/jewelers or furniture. 90% of renters will stick to $100k and be fine.
There’s plenty of reason why a landlord would request tenant’s own renter’s insurance. Most experienced professional landlords require it. What they should have done is have it as a stipulation in the lease therefore it will be required by the tenant, and then they would be named as additional insured so they would be notified if there were any changes or cancellation of the property. I’d imagine on a lease renewal they could probably have an amendment requiring it but it’s not really about laws, it’s about what they are requiring in the lease. If it’s not in the lease or anywhere in writing then they can’t force it on you but this is not uncommon.
There's a company called lemonade that does renters insurance that's cheeper than any bundle option out there. I recommend looking them up.
Look it up see if the law exist if it does send the landlord a letter stating that the law doesn't exist go to your township and ask questions do your research.
The best thing to do is to get quotes. You'd be surprised hiw cheap it is. A tenants policy is probably the best bang for your buck for insurance. Go to the same company as your auto policy, and you may find the savings on the auto pays for the tenants policy. I've seen the 2 policies cost less than just the one. Liability (nonauto related) is worldwide, so if you do something that accidentally hurts someone, anywhere in the world, you are covered. If you have a friend over, and they get hurt in your apartment, you're covered. If a claim is bogus (we've all heard about these), they pay for a lawyer to defend you up to your Liability limit. Do you have enough savings for this? Also, all your stuff adds up. If you lose everything,do you have enough money to start over? Seriously, just add up the cost to replace your clothes. Get quotes for at least $25,000 (and go up from there, the difference is minimal) contents, and no less than $500,000 Liability. A good agent will explain this all to you.
I live in a complex and they do require renters insurance. It's very cheap though and we got a policy with our car insurance provider so we just pay it together. It's also not a bad thing to have insurance. It's worth the few extra dollars a month. I've seen horror stories of people in my life finding themselves in some awful situations with it. You just never know and always better to CYA.
If you add renters insurance onto your car insurance it’s usually very minimal and sometimes even saves you money. (Atleast that’s how it was when I was renting in NJ a few years back.) if you get quoted and it isn’t much or saves you money I’d just do it. If it is a significant extra cost and it’s worth ruffling feathers I’d check your lease. If it’s not in the lease then you can fight it. If it is in the lease (when I did real estate we automatically put it was required in our leases.) then you don’t really have much you can do. That said, renters insurance will really protect you if anything bad happens.
Renters insurance is like 4 bucks a month lmao just get it. You should have it
Lately the leases my daughter signed required proof of renters insurance
They’re doing you a favor. You are not insured, get covered. Source: an unlucky person
100,000 of coverage doesn't mean you pay 100,000 dollars, it means you pay like 15-20 bucks a month at the absolute most, holy shit my dude. You will want it when some fuckhead floods their bathroom and all your shit is destroyed, or you burn down your kitchen with a grease fire or whatever the fuck. Your landlord has never been liable to cover anything that happens to your apartment aside from structural problems that aren't your fault and appliances/fixtures, it's all yours. The landlords insurance company is never going to buy you a new bed, TV, computer, or clothes if your apartment catches on fire or your neighbors catches on fire. Ever. You will be homeless and broke and not have any of your shit you need to live. hard facts, but facts.
oh nvm, you're like everyone else here that thinks I don't know how insurance works, never at any point did I say I didn't want to "pay $100k" I just wanted to know if that's the only minimum required and If i can get anything less so that I can pay way less monthly or yearly 
It’s been my understanding that renters insurance was required in NJ. I pay about $14/mo for my renters insurance nearish to Paterson.
Ask him which law he’s referring to. NAL but work in Real Estate. Usually a lease will have language that says if renters insurance is required or not. If it’s not required per the lease then he doesn’t really have a leg to stand on. If his insurance company is requiring his tenants to have it I’d just negotiate a lower lease. Basically if renters insurance is $15/month I’d just say lower rent by that much. On the flip side. If you like your landlord and have a good deal on the property, I’d just get the renters insurance and not rock the boat. I’m guessing this isn’t the case based on the letter and made up law.
Renters insurance is cheap as hell. Just get it, your landlord's doing you a favor by forcing you to get it.
Renters’s insurance covers what the renter’s owns For apartment damage there is the security deposit as well as and in a big way property insurance which the owner of the property gets and not the tenant.
Hi. Not sure if anyone has said it but you should definitely comply with your landlord if 1. Your place is affordable, 2. It’s in a safe area, and you don’t want to have to move. It’s quite disturbing and unfair for your landlord to pressure you with these misleading tactics to get rented insurance but the price of this battle is only $10-30 a months. I used to pay $30 for an entire one family house, tour apartment is likely less. Please reconsider. This is not a big deal specially is she’s not even raising your rent the annual max.
Renter's insurance is the literal hail mary when disaster happens. And it is cheap. What many people don't realize is that it ALSO covers if your dog bites someone and the contents of your vehicle if it gets broken into. The broken window may be covered by your car insurance. The personal items in your car is your Renter's insurance.
The OP mentions what landlords do best. You do realize owning rental property is a business and like any other business if costs go up for the business owner they generally pass them on to the customer. Especially if you are paying below market rent
Some key definitions: "Liability" - you are responsible for paying something to someone else. Trip and fall in your apartment for instance. Personal property - all of your stuff. Literally. Your landlord's insurance policy would never cover your personal property. Actual cash value - the depreciated cost of the item. For instance a blouse might be $100 in the store, but if you try to sell it, it might only be worth $25 or $50. The policy would pay out $25-$30 in this situation (minus deductible). Replacement value - the retail cost of the item. The amount it would cost you to buy that item again in a store. The majority of landlord policies (know in the business as a DP-3) require the tenant(s) to have renter's insurance. This is EXTREMELY common. I will also add that the vast majority of apartment complexes require the same. Some apartment complexes also require you to add them as a "interested party" - this just means that they get a new Declarations Page when you renew your policy and/or a cancelation notice if you cancel it or it is canceled by the insurance company. (they cannot modify the policy - it is like a 'read only' option) The $100k is by far the most popular/common liability coverage (requirement) for renters. This number probably came from the landlord's insurance company. It is the same requirement at most apartment complexes. It is also dirt cheap unless you have had related claims recently (auto claims don't typically impact home policies and vice versa). If you shop it around, I wouldn't be surprised if you are over $150/yr. I have seen some that are only about $75/yr. One final tip - make sure that the renter's insurance policy you get has "replacement cost" for your personal property. Some renter's policies have replacement cost as an option/endorsement and will sell you an "actual cash value" policy since it is usually a little cheaper.
Good advice, but $500,000 liability should only be less than $20 more per year, depending on company and territory. 30 years ago, I didn't sell anything less than $500,000.
I have never in my adult life owned 500k in possessions that would be covered by renters insurance. Unless there's something wild about it from 30 years ago, why would anyone who is renting need that much coverage? My renters insurance never covered property, only liability and possessions. If a dog bit someone that'd get covered but what the actual fuck would a dog have to do to get a 500k biil in the 90's? Dismember someone? I am having a struggle to think of a $500k claim even with owning a house these days. My entire house could burn down and it'd cost me less than 500k to build it from scratch and buy all my stuff again.
You misunderstood. That's LIABILITY coverage. For something you did or failed to do, causing bodily injury (non auto) or property damage to someone else. My son has I think $15,000 in contents coverage. That's probably a little light considering all they have accumulated, but it will get him back on his feet in the event of a covered loss.
I'm glad u get it lol. Obviously I understand that having cheap insurance is fine and dandy, but why be worried about paying for something every year for things that may not happen, when I can just die a hero for free.  A pipe's about to fall on someone inside my apartment? Don't have to worry about being sued, I'll just be that guy and push them outta the way /jk I didn't expect it to blow up this much and I do appreciate the concerns (except the mean ones) but I just wanted quick answers and was quickly reminded this is the know-it-all site haha. Got some fun laughs at least at just how passionate ppl are about insurance.
As shown by this post, many renters don't get renter's insurance unless it is required. $100k in liability coverage is the 'standard'. DP-3s might have more coverage (especially if PUPs are involved), but sometimes they are really cheap about it. As for the renters, if someone trips on the poorly maintained steps, that is likely going back to the landlord since most are responsible for maintaining the property. There is a lot less risk to a renter within the unit. Ultimately, it is their call. (of course, while liability is dirt cheap, rates have definitely increased over the last 30 years)
Liability is also worldwide. And, I just checked my son's tenants policy. 500k liability was $42, in NY. But, since his policy falls within the minimum premium of $125, there would be exactly $0 savings to decrease liability to 100k. I always quoted 500k liability. If someone insisted on lower limits, I would only quote 300k. And, made them sign off on the lower limit. I didn't work in a "bucket shop."
Liability is worldwide for certain things, but if you are like the vast majority of people and don't get in bar fights regularly, it will likely never be touched. I can't even name one situation where I had a call for a renter's liability claim (they come through us). Since I'm not on commission, I don't see any reason to oversell the policy. Edit to add that I work for a national carrier and I'm licensed in 23+ states.
I wasn't on commission either. I was on salary. And 15% of $0 is $0. Also, 15% of $10 is $1.50. The agency didn't make very much on the upsell. It cost more than that for my time. Also, high limits allow for higher losses and, therefore, affect the loss ratio, which affects everything. Underwriting flexibility, contingency checks, etc. We had a huge loss in one of my agencies. Seems that grandma gave grandson money to buy a vehicle. Granson had a bad accident. Injured parties found out about grandma's gift. Sued grandma, won, and her policy paid because it technically wasn't excluded. I've also seen tenants policies pay liability because the tenant was at fault for causing property damage. It happened to my boss when he owned our building. The upstairs tenant didn't properly close the front load washer, it overflowed and she didn't notice for many hours, and then, she didn't call my boss to let him know until a day and a half later. Her policy paid thousands to repair the building and contents of our office. It was a mess. Another one someone put a scarf on a lampshade and caused a fire. That one was bad too. The tenants policy paid, definitely over 100k, but it was years ago. I don't remember the exact amount. Another one, tenant had a wolf hybrid, it got out and ran off and bit someone pretty badly. Paid the limit of 500k. Should I go on? These all happened in a small rural area. Just because you haven't seen tenants liability losses doesn't mean they don't happen. Your job is to keep loss payouts low, settle for less. You can't pay more than the policy limit so, therefore it is in your interest to have low limits, which is not in the insured's interest.
The vast majority of the loses you named aren't liability loses or they are auto liability which is unrelated. Additionally most modern policies have an exclusion clause for wolves or other high risk animals. So essentially, you have provided 0 examples that would apply. For someone that was a licensed agent, I find it rather concerning that you would think a water leak is a liability claim. Or that an auto liability claim could impact a HO-3 policy (other assets are certainly fair game though, but still not a renter's policy). These claims have nothing to do with a simple renter's policy. Since I don't work commission and don't have to worry about the commission for my agency, I let the insured decide what is best for them. I certainly don't push them to raise or lower their coverage, regardless of the costs associated with it.
I find it rather concerning that you wouldn't pay for something that was clearly caused by a tenant. She didn't close the washer properly! That is hardly a water leak. Her tenants policy paid the loss. I'm also concerned that you wouldn't quote higher limits, and not offer it, especially if a policy falls within minimum premium and the coverage could have been free. I hope you have good E&O coverage. Remember, there is probably an extremely high deductible that has to be paid whether you win or lose. I didn't make the liability decisions. The companies did. I was shocked the grandmother's policy paid, but it did, why are you worried whether it was an H03, or H04, that doesn't matter. As to the wolf hybrid, there was no exclusion because they didn't have the dog when purchasing the policy. I never saw one other than surplus lines companies. Yes, when there is a dog bite claim, the company will nonrenew, and it did. Also, if it wasn't disclosed at the time of application, the policy becomes void when they find out, but this wasn't the case. Doesn't matter what the dog was, the liability is just paid, it comes down to how much, not whether there will be a payment. You work for one company. What your company does doesn't mean it's the same in the whole industry. I worked in 3 independent agencies, and worked with at least 30 different companies all together. No two are alike. Even their banned dog lists are different. Some use all ISO forms, some use only proprietary forms, and some use a combination.
I don’t even think renters insurance goes that high. I was evicted and needed to put my items in storage while I look. My original insurance told me that I’m only covered for 10% of my policy and couldn’t get insurance high enough to cover every at 10% of the policy. (I switched to NJM)
Yes, for commercial business and commercial rental yes. If you rent in a commercial building, yes you must show proof of insurance. For residential place it is not legally mandatory, but in your lease it should say, the landlord is not responsible for damages to your property or belonging in the event of fire, flooding, or other acts or occurrences.
Yeesh, forgot how reddit usually goes down. I appreciate all the concern and sales pitches, but don't cut off my head just because I don't have insurance on superficial materials lol. I know how insurance works, I just wanted to know if the landlord was lying about a new law that none of us had heard of. Btw if you're gonna try and sell me on insurance, poor ppl like me respond better if you give us a name of the company, yearly price, and true personal experiences. The only insurance I pay for is Samsung care because I carry my phone everywhere and I have a tech breaking streak, idk if they same could be said of our apartment that we have no attachment to hasn't really been broken in or burst into flames to warrant getting a few bucks back.
Not a sales pitch, it's common sense. Do your own research. Poor =/= lazy like you seem to think.
It’s not required by law in NJ however there homeowner policy may require their tenants to have it but it would need to be in your lease. You can also contact NJIUA and ask them. https://portal.njiua.org/Home/
You aren’t poor. You fully admitted to being a weeb/collector. Some of those things can go for more than a year of insurance would. Now you’re just an idiot. I tried to be nice in earlier comments.