If a person does not have renters insurance and the rental home catches on fire because someone accidentally left the stove on, can the renter be held responsible to the landlords insurance for repayment?

mybusiness

A fire happened in my sons home. The firemen asked him questions about what he had been doing in the morning. Had he cooked? did he have a coffee maker? Had he made toast? When he acknowledged that he had cooked, they asked if he may have left the stove on? He was shook up and replied, maybe? He didn't know.
The Firemen told the fire marshall that he had been cooking prior to the fire, so of course they said the cause of the fire was the stove left on low. Now the Landlord's insurance adjuster said they would probably come back on him (the renter) for reimbursement.
He did not have renters insurance and he is currently unemployed. They lost everything in the fire.
Can the insurance company do this?

Synnen

Are you asking if someone else leaves a stove on and you lose everything in a fire, if the landlord's insurance will pay for your losses?

Or are you asking if you don't have insurance and accidently leave the stove on, if the landlord's insurance company can come after you for damages?

mybusiness

I am asking if the renter leaves the stove on and does not have renters insurance, can the landlords insurance come back on the renter?

The renter in this case does not have any assets and lost everything he owns in the fire.
He also does not have a job.

Rivethead

They can try - if the tenant was negligent. It's not likely they will if the tenant has no assets.

Lowtax4eva

Yes the tenant would be liable for the damages, but if the renter has no assets they may not even try... or they may get a judgement and the renter would have to declare bankruptcy.

hoightoider

I am not in the insurance business but the insurance company can not go back to the person who accidentally started a fire for reimbursement. Would an insurance company go back on the home owner for a accidentally started fire? No, of course not. That is what insurance is for.

JudyKayTee

Please don't post the same situation on two different threads with slightly different circumstances. This has been answered on your other thread. If they feel he was negligent - and it appears he has indicated that he was - and the insurance adjuster said the company is going to pursue him, I would assume the insurance adjuster is correct and will pursue him as the cause of their loss.

The fact that he's unemployed and lost his own belongings in the fire will not matter - a Judgment is often good for 10 years, renewable for another 10.

Will they? That's also answered on your other thread.

Fr_Chuck

Will they ??? Can they of course, they can always go after the person who caused the fire to be paid back for thier payments out.

So if it can be proved he caused the fire by leaving the stove on, the insurance company can sue him for full payment of all money they pay out.

ScottGem

This is so far off the mark! The fact is that an act of negligence (which leaving a stove on is), is not an accident. Therefore the insurance company could go after the negligent person. Whether he currently has assets or not, doesn't matter.

Your son was foolish for not having renter's insurance and for being negligent. He will now have to pay the price for that.

BTW, your threads were merged, so please keep any followup to this thread.