Blog question – Vandalism by tenants

This is a question that I received on vandalism by tenants:

Allan, hope all goes well and you, and the extended family are safe and healthy.

Question on Policy exclusions of vandalism by those lawfully living in the house versus malicious damage by a tenant. The tenant is obviously living lawfully with a lease but, can malicious damage then be classified as vandalism to avoid cover? [Insurers name withheld] Classic Home Policy is the one in play on this claim.

Thanks John [surname and email provided].

Hi John,

I pulled up the wording on LMI PolicyComparison.com and see that the exclusion reads:

What is not insured:

This policy does not insure you against:

13. vandalism by a person lawfully living or staying at the Building

14. vandalism from any common areas of flats units or townhouses.

In my view vandalism/malicious damage caused by tenants legally on the premises, would be excluded.

I, in fact, think using the word “vandalism” makes the exclusion clearer and easier to understand.

Malicious damage is defined typically as being characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.

As a result, you often have to get into the mind of the person doing it, to determine if it was meant to do harm.

Vandalism is defined in terms of: action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property.

First up, I apologise that I just took these definitions from internet (Dictionary.com) and not my go to dictionaries, as I do not have access to them.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. A person painting what they believe to be great art on the side of a building, what the rest of us call graffiti, may not be done with any malice at all. The person may not be thinking they are doing any harm but, in fact, making the building and the area better with their ‘great’ street art. Is the graffiti malicious damage?

On the other hand, if the artist deliberately paints the wall and this causes damage in the eyes of the insured –which it would if someone painted anything on my building– then this is vandalism.

As I say, I believe it was the clear intention of the drafters not to cover vandalism under this policy and the words reflect that intention.

There are other policies in the market designed specifically to insure landlords that do provide coverage for damage by tenants. I would expect this would cost more for the increased risk being taken on by the insurer.

I hope this helps but I gather from the tone of your note that you will not be happy with the answer. As always, please do not shoot the messenger 🙂

All the best mate, to you and your family. Stay healthy.

One final point. In answering this question, and other questions put to me of late, it reminded me just how powerful and useful a tool PolicyComparison.com is. Thank you Sharron, and your great team at PolicyComparison.com, for constantly keeping this up to date not only for Australia but so many jurisdictions around the world.