Well said and very true.
I'll bet as a renter You're not covered,
and the property owner since he/she did not
erect that and it is not their property they are not covered
and have no need to be. That leaves you the renter hanging
out to dry in the event of an accident, with you footing
thousands of dollars of court costs and fines and liability
for damages/ health issues/ etc. I'm a landlord owning property
in three states and unless I had a formal written document
would have my lawyer ALL OVER my tenant for damages! I'd say
you're hanging onto a tiny branch that's gonna
break with a 1 pound load, and you're holding the money bag.
At 21:10 8/16/2010, you wrote:
>Contact an agent ... there has been a lot of speculation here but
>since you are a renter special issues are at play. Renters insurance
>generally covers contents - not structures on a property even if they
>were erected by a tenant.
>Structures attached to the land are generally covered by the owner's
>policy (e.g., replacement of structures).
>In addition, there are issues of liability ... again, talk to an
>expert agent and attorney experienced in landlord/tenant issues.
>Erecting a tower (normally considered a "permanent improvement")
>on rental properly is a unique situation.
> ... Joe, W4TV
>On 8/16/2010 4:32 PM, Pete Smith wrote:
> > In my area, my agent (State Farm) defines anything on the property as
> > long as it is associated with the lives of the people living there as an
> > accessory structure. After all, would you exclude a garage just because
> > it was not physically connected. Anyway, State Farm paid full
> > replacement cost for a lightning claim on my tower 190 feet from the
> > house a couple of years ago. I'm sure there are state-to-state variations.
> > 73, Pete N4ZR
> > The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at
> > The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
> > spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
> > On 8/16/2010 4:14 PM, Alan NV8A wrote:
> >> On 08/16/10 04:01 pm, K7LXC@aol.com wrote:
> >>>> I will putting the TX-472 up in the next month , I
> am renting so I do
> >>>> not have actual homeowners insurance.
> >>>> Does anyone have any recommendations on insurance companies to
> >>>> investigate ?
> >> My insurance agent told me that the tower is considered an "accessory
> >> structure" -- same as "appurtenant (auxiliary?) structure???? -- IF it
> >> is "attached to" the building. The "attachment" may be nominal but
> >> cannot be merely the electrical connections.
> >> 73
> >> Alan NV8A
>TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk mailing list