All the hype surrounding P contamination in rental property is leading many to assume that meth is the undisputed bogeyman for all landlords.
The thing about the bogeyman is that it is a figment of our overactive imagination, irrationally based, and conveniently served up to distract us from
what matters. Yes, meth contamination is frighteningly possible at rental properties. But just because you own a rental, doesn’t mean it will become
contaminated.
So is meth the biggest risk facing rental property owners? We talk to Gary van Zijl of Initio Insurance to unpack and examine this common supposition.
APIA: So Gary, what do you think? Is the fear of meth contamination, rightly or wrongly, pushing landlords to take out property insurance?
GvZ: Initio clients tend to be quite sensible with their motivation. The main driver
for getting insurance is basic protection against the big loss risks such as fire, flooding, earthquake, and other natural disasters. That said,
recent media attention has moved a lot of investors to seek insurance for meth contamination as a major concern. So yes, if there were one bogeyman
pushing investors and homeowners to seek cover, it would be meth contamination.
APIA: We cannot stress the importance of being suitably covered more. That said, how does the fear of meth contamination compare to the actual loss suffered by rental owners? Is the fear justified?
GvZ: If we talk strictly at claim statistics to determine whether fear of a risk is
justified, then no. The most common claims (approximately 30%) we have seen are for internal water damage from leaking pipes and overflows. Not
meth. Weather-related claims make...
