Two thirds of tenants have no fire-insurance. This was shown by an investigation of an independent expertise office Galtier Expertises NV. This agency sends experts, after every fire, to investigate the damage that has been done.
The biggest problem for the tenants is that they can lose all their belongings and if they do not have a fire- insurance the consequences will be much worse. With most fires, the tenants will be held responsible. Only if the fire is caused by a flash of lightening or a construction fault the tenant will not be held responsible.
The landlords insurance will cover the costs to rebuild his house in the original state. The insurance company will usually put the fault in the shoes of the tenant. If the tenant does not have a fire- insurance, he will personally be held responsible for the damage and will have to pay for it.
In my opinion it is a pity that mostly the tenant has to pay for the damage if he does not have a fire- insurance . But it is a fact that the tenant lives in the house and that he is responsible if something happens.
The most shocking fact is that two thirds of tenants have no fire- insurance. I think that a fire- insurance is one of the most important insurances because if the house is burned, you not only loose all your belongings, but you also have to pay for all the damages. Certainly if you are a tenant, this insurance is essential.
If there is a clause in the rental contract which contains “distance of story” the tenant is not under obligation to take out a fire- insurance. This means that the landlord takes responsibility, and that his or her fire- insurance will pay if there is any damage.
Ruth Blommaert
It is a shame that only one third of the tenants has a fire-insurance. The landlord should control it! When the house is completely destroyed and the tenant is responsible for it, he will be bankrupt. Then he lives for paying his debts. So it is clever to take on. Because when it burns you will be pleased with it.
BeantwoordenVerwijderenDe Ridder Steffie