新西兰法庭判决，房客烧毁房屋，没有赔偿责任。房东

在新西兰

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11626503

无语了！当房东风险好大！

从此要拒绝很多房客，以防灾祸上身。

评论
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/302023/landlords-liable-over-tenants'-damage



评论
A landmark Court of Appeal ruling means landlords are now liable for any damage accidentally caused by tenants - whether or not they have insurance.

A fire damaged home.Landlords or their insurers must pay for accidental damage by tenants, the court ruled (file).

The ruling may result in insurance premiums going up for landlords, and tenants being able to scrap their personal liability policies, a property law expert says.

AMI Insurance has been fighting a $216,413.28 repair bill since March 2009, after a house it had insured was gutted by fire when a pot of oil was left unattended on high heat.

The insurer - which acted in the name of the landlords - claimed the massive cost from the tenants, Kenji and Tieko Osaki, and won in the Tenancy Tribunal.

However, the District Court reversed the decision - which was upheld by the High Court - and ruled the Osakis were not liable.

Under commercial property law, tenants have immunity if there is inadvertent damage.

The Osakis argued the same should apply to residential tenants - and the Court of Appeal agreed.

DAC Beachcroft senior associate Richard Flinn said the ruling could have a big impact on insurance policies.

"The decision confirms that the insurers can't turn to tenants to recover their losses even when the tenants have been negligent.

"From an industry perspective it's going to be helpful for underwriters to know that they're not going to be able to recover those losses, so it may result in landlords' insurance premiums increasing."

Mr Flinn said it showed the importance of landlords insuring their properties.

He said, on the flip-side, some tenants would no longer need personal liability policies protecting them from accidental damage.

Even if a landlord did not have insurance, the ruling would mean they were still liable.

Ruling could affect rents

However, the ruling could hit tenants in other ways, according to Property Investors Association executive officer Andrew King.

"A lot of landlords may not want to have parents with children in their properties for instance, or students - the types of people they deem to be a little more irresponsible.

"Insurance companies may want to know what type of tenants landlords have and they'll apply premiums which they deem to be appropriate."

He said it set a dangerous precedent.

"It relieves tenants of responsibilities and it could mean that they're a little more lacklustre around rental properties and accidentally cause more damage through carelessness.

"It could increase premiums for landlords and ultimately, that could be pushed back on tenants, even those who don't accidentally damage their place."

'A matter for Parliament'

AMI, which is now under the ownership of IAG Insurance, said it must accept the court's decision.

"But we find this difficult to reconcile with the powers in the Residential Tenancies Act for the tribunal to order a tenant to pay a landlord money by way of damages or compensation for any breach of the tenancy agreement," it said in a statement.

"This is now a matter for Parliament to address."

It said it was still considering the ruling's significance for the company and its customers.

The Insurance Council has declined to comment, as there may be a further appeal.


评论
惨了惨了，得赶紧卖掉投资房了

评论
感觉租客也需要买房屋保险，他们肯定付不起20多万的赔偿，但是破坏了房子完全没有责任也太不合理，租客购买保险就可以cover这些。希望保险公司再上诉。

评论
不是都买了房屋保险吗。。。。

评论

有租客买租房保险吗？没听说过

评论
以此类推，租来的车如果因事故受损，租客也不必有赔偿责任。

评论

象文中写到的，加租，外带"歧视性"选择房客。


评论

其实也不难啦，一年保费加个1000刀撑死了，一周房租加个20刀就都回来了。。。哈哈

评论
房東要買房屋保險吧...

房客買的是content insurance

评论
意外损坏都由房东承担？房东有保险就自己去理赔？

评论

买房屋保险时得想清楚是否出租或有租客有的话得加出租险 要不然真被烧了就杯具了 一般房屋险不理赔租客造成的失火损失

评论
但是我听广播说的是这个案件是意外火灾，不是房客故意有意造成的
所以法院因为这是意外就判了房东自己搞定


评论

感觉标题有点误导。按我的理解，房东不用买单，是保险公司买单，保险公司要求租客付而已。房东被要求付租客的诉讼费。可能还会上诉。It's not over yet!

评论

“In a judgement released today, the court says it's trying to decide: "Are residential tenants immune from a claim by the landlord where the rental property suffers loss or damage caused intentionally or carelessly by the tenants or the tenant's guests?"

The answer: Yes, sometimes.”
也就是说，“sometimes" 即便是有意造成的损害房客也不需要承担责任。估计这个法官是租房子的。。。


评论
1) landlord, in this case, has already received compensation from the insurance company.

2) The insurance company ( in landlord's name) is suing the tenant to get back some money that they paid out to the landlord.

3) The court judgement is confined to " question of facts", it does not mean that the tenant is not responsible, it is not responsible in this case, based on the facts of this case.  

Given another damages or accident happened, with different factual circumstances, the decision could be different.


评论
这日本人怎么这么狠.

评论
杀富济贫，呵呵呵呵

评论
放心，刚看了judgement，是有一条法律规定非主观恶意引起的火灾和其它地震洪水等自然灾害一样，个人是免责的，由保险公司承担。仅只火灾一项，和其它租房损坏无关。和ACC一样，保护个人被极端情况折磨死。社会主义！当然有漏洞，如果你失火只烧了2000块损失，估计就要配了。20万就没关系了。呵呵，我就不往下猜了。

评论

保险公司不可能白赔给屋主的，一般过后是要追房客要赔偿的。但法庭现在判租客免责，那保险公司就追责房东吗？

评论
仅火灾（及自然灾害）而已，其他房客造成的损失还是要房客赔。

评论

有什么白不才赔的，他们按照概率计算保费，不会赔的

如果两个司机，都是全保，同一个公司，撞车，两车都报废，你说保险公司向谁追钱去？

评论

我经历这么一个案例
我车报废 和对方同一个保险公司
保险公司认倒霉