Lincoln is fortunate to not see many large fires. On Sunday evening I spoke with a veteran firefighter, and he said the last big call he went out on was over a year ago. Unfortunately for the residents at Thomasbrook Apartments, we still see a few big fire events now and then.
Residents in ten of the 23 units did not have renters insurance. Honestly, I'm surprised the ratio is so low. I'll bet that's one of the lower uninsured-to-insured ratios you'll find in Lincoln. (I'm just guessing here. Does anybody know the percentage of renters with insurance?) In any event, the folks in those ten units are in trouble. Donations are being accepted at any U.S. Bank location.
On the plus side, seeing the firefighters in action hardened the resolve of one of my wife's friends to continue trying to become a firefighter. She lives nearby, but not in the burned building. She spoke very highly of the firefighters at the scene. She said they were professional, courteous, organized, and helpful. Good work, guys and gals.
Speaking of firefighters, I want to thank the guys from Station 4 who helped entertain my son at Southern Heights Presbyterian on Sunday night. Robbie spent a lot of time marveling over the ambulance and fire truck, going back and forth between the two. The guys on duty did a good job playing with Robbie and keeping him out of trouble.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
I feel bad for those folks that have been displaced, but I cannot fathom why people don’t have renter’s insurance. If an apartment complex can make you sign a lease, run a credit check and charge a deposit, and collect several hundred dollars a month, don’t you think they’d require proof of renter’s insurance? I have to show proof of auto insurance before I can license a car - so why not?
More importantly, if you and/or your roommates can afford the hundreds per month, can’t you find another $100-125 a *year* for protection? You may be the most careful person on the planet, but how can you bank on the fact that some idiot or guest in another apartment in your building won’t fall asleep smoking, or put the grill too close to the wooden railing, or something.
Renter’s is one of the most affordable policies out there. At $120 a year, that’s $10 a month. That’s about the price of 1 pizza, or less, per month. I just can’t figure it out.
Lived in an apartment for about 5 years, and only had a renter’s policy for about half of that. When we were forced into the cold one night after the alarms went off, we decided it was finally time to do something. Luckily, there wasn’t a fire, just one of the light ballasts in the hallway burnt out and let off some smoke.
It really wasn’t about the money, it was more about being lazy and the typical “that won’t happen to us.”
Really, it should be required. A friend of mine tried to get an apartment about a month or two ago, and they ran her through the whole gamut of tests. Credit check, employment history, bank statements. Why can’t we just require renter’s insurance also?
I’m not a big fan of requiring insurance. How you choose to protect yourself (or not) is your business. However, in a multi-unit facility there is the ever-important question of liability for damage that you cause to others’ property. In this case, it ticks me off that one person’s cigarette destroyed belongings in 23 units. Liability insurance would have helped protect all the other renters.
Looking at this from another angle, why don’t more insurance agencies partner with apartment complexes, management companies, and landlord organizations (if there are such things) to expand the purchase of renters insurance? Seems to me there’s a huge opportunity there that isn’t being taken advantage of.
Nor am I truly a fan of requiring it. However… if I buy a house, the lender requires me to get it. If I license a car, the state requires me to get it. If I were the owner of a property, I’d look to require it - the owners of Thomasbrook will surely have an expense to rebuild (above and beyond what insurance covers), plus there will be x number of months of no revenue from 23 units. It seems that, on balance, renters insurance is a deal for everyone concerned. I’d want tenants that can pay me on time, and will be responsible. If my requirement made some people not want to rent from me, and go elsewhere, so be it.
For the rest, wouldn’t you have a little piece of mind knowing that everyone else in the building is covered? It would be a solid sales tool and a protective measure. If there were 23 units, times $110 a month, that’s a total of $2,530 a year in policies that would have covered the contents of all those units.
I think your idea of companies trying to partner with multi-unit properties has a lot of merit.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.