Renters Liability: Fire Versus Water
Priya rents a second-floor apartment in a four-unit building in Minneapolis. She carries an HO-4 with Coverage C $30,000, Coverage E $100,000, Coverage F $3,000, and a $500 deductible. In January she leaves a candle burning, and a fire destroys the landlord's kitchen ($70,000) and damages the building's common stairwell ($25,000); smoke and water ruin $9,000 of her own furniture and clothing, whose actual cash value is $4,000. In March, a supply line to her washing machine-installed without the landlord's permission-bursts and water damages the building ($40,000). The landlord's insurer pays the building claims and subrogates against Priya. Priya's carrier denies both liability claims, citing the 'property rented to the insured' exclusion. Priya says her policy should pay because she did not intend the damage. The landlord has not sued yet, and Priya has not submitted a proof of loss for her contents.
1. Does Priya's HO-4 respond to the landlord's $70,000 kitchen fire loss and the $25,000 stairwell loss? Identify the exclusion and the exception.
Read the worked answer
Section II personal liability applies to property damage caused by an occurrence, but the HO-4 excludes property damage to property rented to, occupied or used by, or in the care of an insured. The landlord's building is rented to Priya, so the exclusion is triggered. The important exception is for fire, smoke, or explosion damage to property rented to the insured. The kitchen fire and the smoke damage fall within that exception, so the $70,000 kitchen loss and the fire-related stairwell damage are covered up to the $100,000 Coverage E limit. The $500 deductible is a Section I property deductible, not a liability deductible, so it does not reduce this payment. If the landlord's insurer pays and subrogates, Priya's carrier should defend and indemnify her, subject to the policy limit and the exclusion's precise wording.
2. Does the HO-4 respond to the $40,000 water damage from the burst supply line? Explain the difference.
Read the worked answer
The March water loss is different. There is no fire, smoke, or explosion, so the exception does not apply. The $40,000 damage is to the building rented to Priya, and the 'property rented to the insured' exclusion bars liability coverage. Priya's negligence in installing the line without permission does not create coverage; the exclusion is based on the property, not on intent. The result would be the same if the water came from a plumbing failure rather than her modification. If the water had damaged a downstairs neighbor's personal property, that property is not rented to Priya, so the analysis would be separate; but the building itself is excluded. Priya may have personal exposure for the $40,000, and her carrier should explain the denial in writing.
3. How much, if anything, does Priya recover for her $9,000 contents loss, and what should she do about the carrier's denial and the subrogation demand?
Read the worked answer
Contents: Coverage C is $30,000 and pays actual cash value, not replacement cost. The furniture and clothing have an ACV of $4,000. Subtract the $500 deductible = $3,500. The $9,000 replacement figure is irrelevant unless Priya bought a replacement-cost contents endorsement. She should submit a sworn proof of loss with an inventory, photographs, receipts, and the carrier's denial letter. On the liability side, she should demand that the carrier reconsider the fire claim under the fire exception; the water claim is likely excluded, so she should ask whether the carrier will defend her against the landlord's subrogation demand and, if not, negotiate the water claim separately. She should not assume the denial of both claims is correct; the two losses have different answers.