Q. Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to property insurance?
A)A benefit paid by an insurer to an insured is called a premium.
B)A benefit may be paid under a property insurance policy even if the insured is entitled to sue a third party for causing the loss or damage in question.
C)Property insurance is called first party coverage only if the insurer sold the policy to a human being, rather than a corporation.
D)Property insurance is available for real property, but not personal property.
E)Property insurance is called third party coverage if one person buys insurance with respect to property that is owned by another person.
A)A benefit paid by an insurer to an insured is called a premium.
B)A benefit may be paid under a property insurance policy even if the insured is entitled to sue a third party for causing the loss or damage in question.
C)Property insurance is called first party coverage only if the insurer sold the policy to a human being, rather than a corporation.
D)Property insurance is available for real property, but not personal property.
E)Property insurance is called third party coverage if one person buys insurance with respect to property that is owned by another person.
A. A) FALSE : The Premium is the amount that the insured pays TO the Insurer
B) TRUE : In such cases the insurer then takes over the right of action to sue the third party - this is called SUBROGATION
C) FALSE
D) FALSE : you can insure any property provided you stand to lose if it is destroyed or damaged.
E) FALSE : In general you cannot insure property that is owned by another person as you do not have an INSURABLE INTEREST in that property (see my answer to D)
B) TRUE : In such cases the insurer then takes over the right of action to sue the third party - this is called SUBROGATION
C) FALSE
D) FALSE : you can insure any property provided you stand to lose if it is destroyed or damaged.
E) FALSE : In general you cannot insure property that is owned by another person as you do not have an INSURABLE INTEREST in that property (see my answer to D)
An owner has a boarder their basement apartment is the basement considered rental property?
Q. A friend owns and occupies his home and has a basement apartment- they are thinking of taking in a boarder. The question is if the boarder occupies this portion of their home, and there is a need to claim damages through the insurance is the boarder occupied basement considered rental property requiring commercial rental property insurance or may it be claimed on the homeowners insurance. Is there a website to look up this information? We live in the state of Illinois.
A. In most states and with most insurance companies, he would be required to purchase commercial insurance on the dwelling, additional coverage on his personal contents.
Depending on the city/town/state laws about rental apartments, he may be subject to having the apartment inspected before it can be rented legally. The biggest issue is usually adequate escape routes should there be a fire. Egress windows are almost always required; not the little tiny typical basement windows. And a separate entrance probably.
Homeowners insurance does not typically offer the needed liability coverage to extend to a rental unit.
The best way to know is call a local insurance agent. He/she will have experience and might even be able to tell you about what inspections are needed. The insurance company may require a copy of those inspection reports also.
Depending on the city/town/state laws about rental apartments, he may be subject to having the apartment inspected before it can be rented legally. The biggest issue is usually adequate escape routes should there be a fire. Egress windows are almost always required; not the little tiny typical basement windows. And a separate entrance probably.
Homeowners insurance does not typically offer the needed liability coverage to extend to a rental unit.
The best way to know is call a local insurance agent. He/she will have experience and might even be able to tell you about what inspections are needed. The insurance company may require a copy of those inspection reports also.
What is the different between Bodily Injury and Property Damage & Coverage for damage to non-owned aircraft?
Q. Renter Insurance question continue..... ??
How come Optional Coverage for damage to non-owned aircraft cost much more at least 5 times more than the basic Bodily injury and property damage in order to have some meaningful compensation amount in the case an unfortunate pilot needs it ?
How come Optional Coverage for damage to non-owned aircraft cost much more at least 5 times more than the basic Bodily injury and property damage in order to have some meaningful compensation amount in the case an unfortunate pilot needs it ?
A. Bodily Injury and Property Damage to Others is a liability coverage, and only pays out to a third party. Therefore, if you rented a plane, and crashed it into a person's house, BI/PD would cover the damage to the house and the injuries to the occupants of the house. It would not cover any injuries to you, or the aircraft that you rented.
Damage to Non-Owned Aircraft coverage would cover the aircraft itself, in the even that you damaged it while in your care and control. The reason that this coverage is so much more expensive is mainly to do with the likeliness of a loss.
With any typical flight, you are not very likely to crash the plane, cause massive injury to others, or damage huge amounts of property. Therefore, the insurance company can be relatively sure that out of say 1,000 liability policies that they will write, they will only pay out on one of them. This is not true of damage to the rented aircraft.
But think about this: How easy is it to ding up a plane is a small way? In a Cessna 172, for example, pull back to hard on the yoke at high power, and you will strike the tail. A small accident, sure, but one which costs the owner money in repairs and inspections. Or you accidentally step on the wrong part of the wing getting into a Piper Warrior, again, small damage, but expensive to repair. As the rental company will hold you responsible for any damage that you to do the plane, the insurance company sees far more claims for this type of coverage, say 40-50 in 1,000 policies. And since these claims can costs thousands of dollars, they charge an appropriate amount.
Renter's insurance is expensive, there is no doubt, but it is not nearly as expensive as a claim would be if you didn't have it.
Damage to Non-Owned Aircraft coverage would cover the aircraft itself, in the even that you damaged it while in your care and control. The reason that this coverage is so much more expensive is mainly to do with the likeliness of a loss.
With any typical flight, you are not very likely to crash the plane, cause massive injury to others, or damage huge amounts of property. Therefore, the insurance company can be relatively sure that out of say 1,000 liability policies that they will write, they will only pay out on one of them. This is not true of damage to the rented aircraft.
But think about this: How easy is it to ding up a plane is a small way? In a Cessna 172, for example, pull back to hard on the yoke at high power, and you will strike the tail. A small accident, sure, but one which costs the owner money in repairs and inspections. Or you accidentally step on the wrong part of the wing getting into a Piper Warrior, again, small damage, but expensive to repair. As the rental company will hold you responsible for any damage that you to do the plane, the insurance company sees far more claims for this type of coverage, say 40-50 in 1,000 policies. And since these claims can costs thousands of dollars, they charge an appropriate amount.
Renter's insurance is expensive, there is no doubt, but it is not nearly as expensive as a claim would be if you didn't have it.
Should I form an LLC to buy an investment property or should i just buy it just as a personal property?
Q. Investment Property Question
If i buy it personally and then place it into an LLC what is the advantages to that?
If i buy it personally and then place it into an LLC what is the advantages to that?
A. Why would you want to put a single investment property into a LLC? I don't know a single advantage why you would want to, unless you want to go to the trouble and expense for fun.
I put all of my properties in my Family Trust. I insure each one individually and also have a personal umbrella policy that includes every property. Check out Personal Umbrella.com. They are a stand alone umbrella insurance company and their rates are very reasonable.
I own to many investment properties so my homeowners insurance will not insure my rentals.
Safeco insures most of my residential rentals and Mercury commercial properties.
If you have your personal name on the loan but have title in a LLC there is a good chance that in a lawsuit the plaintiff would pierce the corporate shield of the LLC and you would be held individually responsible....thus, doing away any reason for having an LLC in the first place.
I put all of my properties in my Family Trust. I insure each one individually and also have a personal umbrella policy that includes every property. Check out Personal Umbrella.com. They are a stand alone umbrella insurance company and their rates are very reasonable.
I own to many investment properties so my homeowners insurance will not insure my rentals.
Safeco insures most of my residential rentals and Mercury commercial properties.
If you have your personal name on the loan but have title in a LLC there is a good chance that in a lawsuit the plaintiff would pierce the corporate shield of the LLC and you would be held individually responsible....thus, doing away any reason for having an LLC in the first place.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment