Skip to main content

View Diary: The price of doing bidness (211 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It kinda depends on what the insurance is for (5+ / 0-)

    If it's insurance that covers any damage that the tenant might do to the landlord's property, it's probably legal.  

    It's commonplace for landlords to require deposits to cover potential damage.  If a landlord's experience is that tenants (in general) cause more damage than a "reasonable" deposit would cover, then it doesn't seem unreasonable for the landlord to buy insurance to cover that damage and include the cost in the rent.  Requiring the tenant to purchase such insurance directly sounds like a kickback scheme between the landlord and an insurance broker.

    We must drive the special interests out of politics.… There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will neither be a short not an easy task, but it can be done. -- Teddy Roosevelt

    by NoMoJoe on Sun May 05, 2013 at 09:51:57 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, that too... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Involuntary Exile, StrayCat
      Requiring the tenant to purchase such insurance directly sounds like a kickback scheme between the landlord and an insurance broker.

      "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

      by lunachickie on Sun May 05, 2013 at 09:54:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site