Thanks a bunch, great info, exactly what I needed.
The one you listed is not the one I saw. I can’t find it online only in the Enfield CT store. I wish I remembered the website of the company. The company sells the system for 1600 costco sells it for 979.
Property Manager, this is directed mainly to you. I’m in OH as well and my girlfriend’s apartment was burglarized with about $3,000-$5,000 in jewelry taken. NO forceful break in marks on the unit so we questioned if it was a previous tenant. The landlord says the locks were changed. She failed to have renter’s insurance…not smart, I know. Have you ever been in this situation as a landlord? And, if so how did things work out? We’re trying to decide if legal action could help indemnify the loss or if it’s a live and learn situation. Thanks for your advice…or anyone else that can chime in with advice!!!
Thanks Again,
G
G,
Anyone can sue anyone at anytime for anything. However, suing is one thing and winning is quite another. Unless your girlfriend has proof that the locks were not changed, I don’t think that she has a legal leg to stand on. My leases say in bold print that the tenant should have renter’s insurance. It is VERY inexpensive and it is absolutely foolish for a tenant not to have it (although most don’t). If I were the landlord, I would fight any lawsuit that tried to blame me for this type of incident. No break in marks doesn’t mean anything. Did the tenant leave the windows unlocked (I see that ALL THE TIME)? Did a friend of the tenant steal the jewelry (much more likely than a previous tenant)? Did the tenant leave the door unlocked?
Probably not what you wanted to hear, but that’s my honest opinion.
Good Luck,
Mike
G:
Thru the years, I had a few burglaries, and tenants are under the mistaken notion that the landlord has insurance and covers them. Not only do I require “tenant insurance”, I also have a sitdown with new tenants explaining what my insurance does NOT cover, and what “tenant insurance” is. Still, as “propertymanager” says, many still don’t get around to it. I spoke to my insurance agent about buying it for tenants and pricing it into the rent, by I was told one person cannot buy inurance for another. It’s only $10.00/month.
Of course, there was one guy who had a burgalry, and when he rented up, I didn’t trust him, and asked for a copy of his tenant insurance, which he provided, but was subsequently cancelled for non payment.
When he theatened to sue after the burglary, I told him as soon as he does that, I’ll be filing for eviction, since he was in violation of the lease for not having the insurance. Since there was some damage to my property, and his insurance would have covered it, I told him I’ll even be suing him for damages done. After all, the best defence is a good offence. He backed down after that, because he didn’t want to be evicted, have to move, or get sued.
If I was sued on “safety and security” reasons, it is one issue that I can file a claim against my landlords insurance. Keep in mind a insurance companies can drag it out years and years, and proving an unsafe situation is far from certain. Once guy tried to sue me for a slip and fall in front of my business, the insurance dragged it out for over two years now, he threatened to sue, but heard from his friends and he can’t even find lawyers to take the case. He thought he found one who wouldn’t return his calls.
Here in NYS, I’m careful of changing locks, making sure tenants lock up the front entrance, locks on windows works etc. Unless I got a security guard in front, that’s all the security the tenant expects.
G,
I agree with the other 2. Statistically it’s more likely that someone entered through an unlocked door or window than anything else. It’s also more likely that the theif knew your girlfriend. Even if the door was locked and a stranger entered, they have about a 15% chance of getting caught, so statistics will prevail for the defense attorney. Renting means the tenants have the RIGHT of use to the space between the floor, walls, and ceiling. It’s the tenants responsibility to protect their valuables. $5,000 worth of jewelry justifies a $500 safe to put it in. You can blame other people until your blue in the face, it’s still a persons own responsibility to protect themselves. If your girlfriend got mugged while walking to her car, she could sue the landlord for not having armed guards patrolling the apartments and the police department for not being more vigilant, but the responsibility still falls on the individual at the end of the day. If I were a tenant, I’d change the locks myself at the very minimum. $20 and a phillips head screw driver is all you need. Mace makes a $35 battery powered motion detector alarm with a keypad. When it’s set and detects motion, a VERY loud and high pitched alarm is sounded that will atleast alert the neighboring tenants. The only way to turn it off is with the code or a hammer, but it will already have done it’s job by then and the neighbors will know something is it up.
She wouldn’t have much of a case when suing the landlord and she’d probably end up paying 2 sets of attorney’s fees and court costs for the trouble. That’s not the position I’d want to be in after getting 5k worth of uninsured stuff stolen. This is a live and learn situation without a doubt.
Danny:
Good points.
Not having tenant insurance is almost like not carrying insurance on your car, and if something happens, if in the mall, the mall operator is at fault, if on the street, the police is not vigilant, if in your driveway, the landlord lacked security.
In other words, “babysitters” are needed all over.
I was watching one of these TV court shows, and the judge found it incredulous that a tenant had thousands of dollars of valuables in the apartment, failed to get it insured, and only then found security lacking.
The judge figured that the tenant should’ve checked out security adequately, moved away if found wanting, or spent a hundred bucks or so on insurance.
Because the tenant failed to do so, the judge found that at best the tenant was negligient, or at worst, the goods stolen didn’t exist in the first place.
…ahhh - a judge with some stones!
Keith
Must of been a blue state…
:guns :elephant
Thanks for all of your replies! You’re going to like this…I’m a commercial insurance underwriter…I know the insurance stuff but wanted to get the other sides point of view. We figured it would be a learning situation but thought we should make sure before letting it go. Also very good advice for my novice landlording skills.
The slip and fall claim mentioned above happens more than you know. I’d say about 70% of the lessor risk/habitational type accounts tend to have at least 1-2 claims per year…I don’t know who you all use for coverage but check to see if you have med pay. The drawn out slips can cost you mega bucks and make your insurance history look unprofitable…thus driving your rate up at a later date. Med pay is basically good faith coverage to get the small claimants out of your business.
Thanks again for all of your input. We’re going to let it go…now I need to focus on the investments so I can rebuild her jewelry box.
I’m also going to kick her friends butt…
Not bloody likely…it’s the eunuch liberal judges in the blue states that need to be drawn and quartered…
http://www.thoseshirts.com/cat.html
Keith
The building has cameras - the current owner says he keeps the tapes for 72 hours and then records over them. Should I save more hours when the building is mine?
It’s not web based - does that allow me to see it from another state, from the convenience of my computer?
Is is then saved somewhere, and if so for how long?
Thanks Jag
p.s. That was brilliant advice
Tapes got to be changed every so often, or the images on it gets fuzzy as the tape quality goes down. With a PC based system:
- Recording is made to hard drive, image quality remains the same throughout…
- PC also records over old images, but hard disk capacity determines how long before recording over.
- With PC, and internet connection, and proper setup on your end, you can watch whats going on even in real time.
- With PC based systems, you can go with a 4 camera system, 8 or 12 camera system, depending on software.
I looked at some systems mentioned in this thread, and it seems very cost effective. Also had a professional come to my business to look, and a 8 camera system. professionally installed, and WEB enabled, cost in excess of $6,000.00 in NYC.
Frank:
My parter is in NYC, he has a great camera guy. If you want I can hook you up and compare quotes.
It takes some stones to make a decision outside of the bible.
For your wife- http://www.cafepress.com/buy/liberal/-/pv_design_prod/p_storeid.13620626/pNo_13620626/id_5294911/opt_/pg_/c_/fpt_
For Mike- http://www.cafepress.com/buy/liberal/democrat/-/pv_design_details/pg_2/id_15576344/opt_/fpt_/c_360/
:bigok
<<It takes some stones to make a decision outside of the bible.>>
I’ve no problem with decisions made inside or outside the bible – it’s the decisions outside the Constitution that these liberals make up that burn a canyon in my ass…
Keith
LOL
No doubt about it. I took the same Oath of Allegiance to defend the Constitution you did. The problem lies in the religiously skewed interpretation by the Republicans. I am by no means a politically defined “liberal”, I think they’re a bunch of quacks as much as the next guy. Liberalisms true definition is what this county was built on, Freedom!
The same conservative constraints of Republicans are IDENTICAL to the bible, therefore confusing the separation of Church and State. Line one of Amendment I says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
I’m still looking for the “separation of Church and State” verbiage in the Constitution – I’ve read it dozens of times and can’t seem to find it…all I can find is the part about establishing a Government sanctioned religion – nothing about the government being completely secular…
Keith
“Separation of Church and State” is not in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson coined that phrase.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is in the Constitution.
I’m in no position to debate Constiutional law but what this means to me is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Congress is free to exercise their religion, just as long as no laws are passed forcing others to follow it. If laws can’t be passed which favor a particular religions, it seems pretty clear that their must be a separation between religion (Church) and State.
Amendment I: Freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.2