On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 01:38:28 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On Apr 1, 5:37*pm, mm wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 07:20:49 -0700, Smitty Two



wrote:
In article ,
mm wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

Tenants are responsible for insuring the contents of their units
(their furniture, clothing, small appliances, etc.) which are not
provided by the landlord...

It depends on whose fault the fire was. *I doubt it was the fault of
all the tenants or a group of them. *More likely one of them, or
lightning, or much to the disgrace of this newsgroup, possibly Mr.
ransley.

I'm with Evan here, tenants are responsible for insuring their own
stuff. This is so well-established

It's well established that a tenant should have insurance. *If he
wants to be sure to be reimbursed, but that doesn't mean the landlord
can't be liable. * A tenant needs insurance because *A) The tenant
himself may start the fire, so of course the LL won't pay. *B) The
landlord probably owns the building through a corporation that owns
only this one building, so with a big enough fire, the corporation may
go bankrupt, etc. *C) If a neighbor starts the fire, he may skip or
have no assets.

that short of the landlord being
caught intentionally torching the place I doubt that a tenant or his
insurance company would ever win a suit against anyone else for loss of
personal possessions.

You're way off base. * If the landlord's intentional act OR negligence
causes the fire, the LL has to pay. *

I'm not talking about where a repair is needed in an apartment and the
tenant doesn't notify the ll, or doesn't let him know it's gotten
worse, or doesn't stop using something where using it creates a bigger
risk. *In that case, the tenant may be all or partly liable for the
damage to his apartment and its contents (and the rest of the
building), and the LL will likely rely on his own insurance for
repairs to the building.

But in a suit by a different tenant who also had fire or water damage,
both a negligent tenant and a less negligent landlord can be held
liable, either proprotionally or jointly, depending on the US state
one lives in. * *

But fires start in the hall and common areas, in the landlord, super,
or janitor's apartment, or in the basement, and if it's the LL's
negligence or attributed to him, he owe tenants for their
possesssions, and if they have to move out, may well owe them if their
rent at another location is more than their rent under the lease.

BTW, some tenants have money; some are rich. Most apartment buildings
in NYC are cooperatives now, but I'd be surprised if was every single
one of them was. *Some tenants have enough money to make it worth
suing them, by the LL and by the neighbors. *Of course most of these
people aren't jackasses and don't start fires, but accidents happen.

And come to think iof it, even if it is a co-op or a condo, the co-op
or condo will sue the resident and/or owner who starts a fire, and so
will his injured neighbors. *


Let's address your inept reply:

Let's address your mistaken reply. :-)

A tenant can try to sue someone for such things, but unless they
can obtain really good absolute proof that such and such is
responsible for starting the fire through an intentional act, good

Are you not aware of the concept of negligence? Are you not aware of
the standard of proof necessary in a civil suit, a preponderance of
the evidence. No plaintiff needs absolute proof, let alone "really
good absolute proof".

Someone may have discouraged a suit with these claims, but he was
mistaken or he was bluffing.

Many fire scenes are inspected by fire marshals, so let's consider
those, For any fire where the fire marshall makes out a report and
makes a finding that the cause of the fire was the landlord or another
tenant, that in itself is enough proof for a prima facie case. The
respondent may bring forth evidence that the fire marshall didn't
consider. I don't know and it may vary, if the fire marshall reviews
the maintenance records of the landlord, or if he just says the fire
was caused by the furnace, and leaves it up to others to decide if the
furnace was adequately maintained. But a prima facie case is the one
made out by plaintiffs before a respondent puts on a defense.

luck getting any money -- that is what insurance is for and why
a mature adult would have it...

It's only a part of what insurance is for and why people have it. As
I explained in my previous post and in more detail in my other post
today.

What part of "landlord is not responsible for the tenant's contents"
period are you unable to grasp...

I understand that your saying it doesn't make it true.

The only way to have the landlord
or another tenant be responsible for contents is to have them on
video tape or have WITNESSES who saw them start the fire...

No offense meant, but that's nonsense.

But that would be of little utility when the civil suit comes around

"When the civil suit comes around"! My entire previous post was about
civil liability and suits which follow from that. (Note how many times
I use words like liable (not the word guilty), money, pay, suit, etc.)

as they would already be convicted of arson by then and serving
a 20/25-ish year sentence... Prisoners don't have many assets...

You're jumping to the conclusion that it *was* arson. It's rare that
either a landlord or a tenant commits arson to the building he owns or
lives in. Negligence is a far more likely cause of just about
everything everywhere, from fires to broken bones to car collisions,
than is the intent to harm someone or some thing.

For that matter, your post too started off about civil suits. Your
first words "A tenant can try to sue someone for such things"

A fire could start anywhere, the basement, the roof, a stairwell,
the front entry door -- for the landlord to have any liability you
would
have to prove an intentional act of negligence or malfeasance...

What do you mean by an "intentional act of negligence"?

If someone somehow intends to be negligent, it's worse than simple
negligence.

Not just that the fire originated in an area that was the
responsibility
of the landlord...

Of course it's not enough for it just to have originated there. I
didn't say otherwise**. Are you trying to contradict something I
never said?

**That's why I used the word "negligence". Now ftr the landlord or
his agent could be negligent in one of the tenants' apartments too.
He could come in to repair something and negligently start a fire.
He'd be liable then too, not just for damages to that tenant's
possessions but for any tenant whose possessions were damaged, from
the fire or what the fire department did to put the fire out. But
that situation is very rare and I left it out to keep the previous
post simple.

BTW, in a co-op or condo building -- the "apartments" or "units"
are separately deeded premises and taxed as such to their
individual owners... NOT the same as an apartment building
owned by one entity and rented by another... And the douche
bags who go nuts and sue for such things often end up surprised
that they end up paying part of the settlement to themselves as

They may be stupid and surprised sometimes, but most are not -- it's
the dumb ones who get noticed -- and if, by actions of an employee of
the building, 10 apartments are damaged and 90 aren't, and they win 10
or 100 thousand dollars per damaged apartment in damages and have to
pay 1 or 10 of that themselves, they're still going to want that 10 or
100, and sue if they have to to get it, and even if they have to pay
10% of it themselves.

they are an owner in the co-op and/or condo and every unit gets
special assessed to pay off a special expense... :-O Such things
are paid equally by all owners based on the square footage of
space owned...

Of course. See just above.

Right, but in a co-op or condo, like I stated above the unit occupants
have property rights to a portion of the structure which they own
unlike rental apartment dwellers... Any damage caused to a co-op
or condo common area would be assessed a fee or a fine to repair
and if the party who caused such damage doesn't live up to their
responsibility,

So you think one party can be responsible and forced to pay for damage
to the common area. But iiuc, you think he can't be forced to pay for
damage to someone else's apartment? Then you are the one who will be
surprised.

then either a lien on the deed which would need to
be paid off first from the proceeds of any sale would be attached,
a forcible foreclosure/eviction process begun or a lawsuit to recoup
the damages started depending on the decisions of those in charge...

~~ Evan

BTW, it was my mistake in the previous post to bring up co-ops and
condos. They're really the same as any other apartment building in a
case like this, at least in terms of who will claim against and sue
whom. The only difference is who owns the property or who owns the
common areas, but that won't change who sues.

Also my suggestion that the LL owns the building through a corporation
doesn't help the landlord if he himself was the negligent party. Say
he lives there, or was visiting. He would have opportunities to cause
the fire himself. OTOH, his super or janitor probably works for the
corporation, and their acts can be attributed to the corp. but likely
not the owners of the corp. OT3H, there is a concept called piercing
the corporate veil. Checking a couple links, I can't find evidence
this has been applied to this kind of negligence case, but IANAL, and
if I had substantial losses that my insurance didn't cover, I'd look
into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercin...corporate_veil

I'd talk to a lawyer in my own state.

None of this helps or even relates to ransley of course. Sorry, guy.