My friend has a property where he rents it out to a family. The house had suddenly caught on fire, yet no one knows the cause of it...

The tennants did gain some kind of injuries do to the fact they had to jump out windows from the second floor. Where they had broken some bones...

However my friend whom just purchased the property did not have insurance. As well the investigator, as well as the tennants do not know how it happened.

Can the tennants sue the landlord? Will they win? What can they win?

My friend is worried...

Your friend should be worried. I'm surprised that he was able to close without showing an insurance binder.

The key is going to be determining the cause of the fire. Unless it can be show to be due to the negligence of the tenants, your friend is probably going to liable.

He did not have a mortgage, therefore there was no necessity to have insurance. Yet he was planning to get insurance but did not get in time...

How can the tennants prove it was the negligence of the landlord and not theirs?

What can my friend get sued for if his assets are the house that burned down, and his house? What can he have to lose?

That's not the point. If they sue and he can't prove if was their negligence, he will likely lose. If they get a judgment, that will hang over his head for 20 years.

And he could lose his home as well as the rental property. Even if the house is a total loss, the land has value.

Agreed, unless the landlord can prove it was the renters fault, most likely he may have to be writing checks for their injuries.

They have good chances at sue and win, If it was me, I would be there trying to help them anyway I could to try and cut my losses

How can the landlord be responsible? He was not there, neither did he start the fire. After doing research on the internet, most fires are caused by tenants.

So why would the landlord be blamed??

Because it is his property. Firs generally don't happen spontaneously. Its usually due to faulty wiring, or something like that. That's the landlord's responsibility.

One last question...

WHat happends if the tenant did not sign the new lease, and there was no lease signed?

There was a lease but it expired, due to the tenant wanting to leave and find a new place but never did, therefore the tenant was just staying with no lease but still paying rent.

Doesn't matter. Lease reverts to a month to month tenancy.

So what you are saying is that, if the lease expires, there is no renewal clause in the lease, the lease is still a lease, just on a month to month basis?

Including if she broke the lease? The tenant did many things like having more than 5 people living inside the house, and the lease states that only 5 people can live there. At the time of the fire there 8 people living there...

And the tenant did other things according to the lease which was wrong...

The lease is the lease and they are month to month renters. If they needed to be evicted, he should have evicted them, as long as they were his renters, ( or even guests in a home he owns and rents out) he has liability on the property. Thus the reason he is suppose to buy insurance before he closes, or at worst the day he closes.

So unless he hires an investigator, or unless the fire department finds out what was the problem, he has a very good chance of being held responsible. Perhaps old wiring in the house, perhaps improper wiring, something in the home not up to electrical code.

If he can prove the renters caused, it, he will have a defense.

No. Unless there is some evidence that the fire was due to some negligence on the part of the landlord, there is no basis for liability on the part of the landlord. While it may have been caused by a problem with the wiring, it also could have been caused by some negligence on the part of the tenant. If there is simply no way of telling, the landlord cannot be found negligent. And the landlord has no duty to insure in behalf of the tenant.