Renters Insurance Clause
in Your Lease
What it actually means, what Nevada law says, what's specific to Las Vegas - and exactly what to do. In plain English.
Quick Summary - What You Need to Know
- The section list of Nevada's residential landlord and tenant chapter was read from NRS 118A.010 through NRS 118A.530 and names no tenant or renters insurance section, so a coverage figure in a Las Vegas lease is a contract term rather than a code minimum.
- NRS 118A.220(1)(d) makes void a rental agreement provision by which the tenant agrees to the exculpation or limitation of the landlord's liability, or to indemnify the landlord for it, where that liability rests on an act or omission of the landlord or its agent or employee.
- NRS 118A.220(2) lets a tenant recover any actual damages incurred through the inclusion of the prohibited provision, so the wording being in the agreement is what the remedy answers.
- NRS 118A.200(3) lists what every written Nevada rental agreement must contain - the rent, required fees and their purposes, deposits and utility responsibilities - and insurance is not among them.
- NRS 118A.242 caps a security deposit and surety bond together, including the last month's rent, at 3 months' periodic rent, and bars a landlord from requiring you to buy a bond in place of paying the deposit.
Understanding the Renters Insurance Clause
Renters insurance reaches a lease as a condition on the tenancy: an amount to carry, a deadline to prove it, and a duty to keep the policy alive until the term ends. In Nevada that demand is written by your landlord rather than by the legislature.
The sentences packed in beside it are where Nevada law actually shows up. NRS 118A.220(1)(d) makes void a provision handing the landlord's own liability back to you, and its subsection 2 attaches a damages claim to writing that provision into the agreement at all. Read the current text of NRS 118A.220 and NRS 118A.242 before you rely on either one.
What renters assume
Renters treat the coverage figure and the responsibility language as one requirement, and read the whole paragraph as Nevada law arriving in their lease.
What is actually true
Only one half of it is Nevada law, and it points the other way. The figure is the landlord's, while NRS 118A.220(1)(d) voids the promise to absorb the landlord's own liability and subsection 2 lets you recover actual damages incurred through its inclusion.
Count the rows before reading anything into them. Sixteen cities are plotted, eleven carry a bar at $100,000, and four - Philadelphia, Boston, Las Vegas and Washington - carry none. The quantity being plotted is a coverage amount, so a blank row says one thing only: no state coverage figure could be sourced there.
It is not a reading of what Nevada law does about this clause, because what Nevada does is void a sentence, and a voided sentence has no height on a bar chart. Of the eleven bars, nine are labelled typical - the figure landlords ask for, not one a legislature set.
Two of the eleven are code rather than custom, and they are not the same kind of number. California's only statutory dollar figure is the waterbed liability policy in Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.5, which is what puts a bar under Los Angeles. Oregon's ORS 90.222 runs the other way and makes $100,000 per occurrence, or the customary local amount if that is greater, a ceiling on what a Portland landlord is allowed to ask for.
Plain English Version
Nevada never tells you to buy renters insurance and never says how much. What it does say is that you cannot be signed up to carry the landlord's own mistakes, or the mistakes of the people working for them. If that promise is written into your lease anyway it is void, and the law lets you claim any actual damages its inclusion cost you.
Renters Insurance Clause Example - What the Wording Looks Like in Las Vegas, NV
The sample clause below is real lease language - a court quoted it word for word, and then ruled on it. What the judge decided is at the bottom of this block.
Find the equivalent paragraph in your own lease and read the two side by side. The wording will differ; the moving parts rarely do.
7. Insurance. [The Riggses are] responsible for obtaining fire and extended coverage, including public liability[ ] insurance with [the Harkers] to be listed as an additional insured under the policy. [The Riggses] shall also be responsible for renter's coverage on [the Riggses'] own personal property located on the Leased Premises. [The Riggses] shall indemnify and hold [the Harkers] harmless from all claims of thi9rd [sic] parties for bodily injury, property damage or death arising from [the Riggses'] use or occupancy of the Leased Premises.
Quoted from the published opinion in Hoosier Insurance Co. v. Riggs, 92 N.E.3d 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). Judicial opinions are not subject to copyright; the lease language is reproduced in limited part for commentary under 17 U.S.C. § 107.
“for obtaining fire and extended coverage, including public liability”
Fire and extended coverage answers for the structure; public liability answers for people who get hurt. Nevada fixes neither amount. NRS 118A.200(3) sets out what every written Nevada rental agreement must contain - rent, required fees and their purposes, deposits and utility responsibilities - and insurance is not among those provisions, so no Nevada statute sets a minimum or a maximum liability limit a landlord may ask for. Oregon has a ceiling: under ORS 90.222(1) the amount demanded may not exceed $100,000 per occurrence or the customary local amount, whichever is greater.
“an additional insured under the policy. [The Riggses] shall also be responsible”
An additional insured is not a notification: it puts the landlord inside your policy, so your carrier can be called on for the landlord's exposure too. Nevada draws its line by subject rather than by product. NRS 118A.220(1)(d) makes void a rental agreement provision by which the tenant agrees to the exculpation or limitation of any liability of the landlord arising under law, or to indemnify the landlord for that liability, if the liability is based upon an act or omission of the landlord or any agent or employee of the landlord. Whose conduct the claim rests on is the question.
“indemnify and hold [the Harkers] harmless from all claims”
Insurance pays from a policy; an indemnity pays from you. It is the second promise NRS 118A.220(1)(d) names, alongside exculpation: a provision under which the tenant agrees to indemnify the landlord for liability arising under law, or for the costs connected with it, is void where that liability is based on an act or omission of the landlord or its agent or employee.
“arising from [the Riggses'] use or occupancy”
Fault is missing from the trigger. What sets this indemnity going is that the unit was used or occupied, which says nothing about anyone doing anything wrong. The Nevada provision is built on the opposite question - whether the liability is based upon an act or omission of the landlord or its agent or employee - so the two are not measuring the same thing. Hoosier decided nothing against the tenants: the Indiana court reversed a dismissal and sent the paragraph back.
The insurer's claim survived. Nobody was held liable. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a Rule 12(B)(6) dismissal and sent the case back. Under Indiana's case-by-case approach this insurance paragraph has to be construed to work out who the parties intended to bear the risk of fire loss, which means the landlord's insurer could be a real party in interest entitled to sue the tenants in subrogation. The rule it leaned on is worth reading twice: “if a lease obligates a tenant to procure insurance covering a particular type of loss, such a provision will provide evidence that the parties reasonably anticipated that the tenant would be liable for that particular loss, which would allow an [ ] insurer who pays the loss to bring a subrogation action against the tenant.” The case was remanded for the trial court to read the lease and weigh the equities. So the clause was enough to keep the subrogation claim alive - it did not decide it, and no renter should read this as a ruling that the tenants owed the money.
One court, one lease, one state. That answer is not automatically yours, and your lease may be worded to land differently. Use this to know what to look for and what to ask - your state's tenant hotline or a local tenant attorney can answer it for your document.
Nevada Law on Renters Insurance Clause
- The full section list of chapter 118A of NRS, Nevada's residential landlord and tenant act, was read from NRS 118A.010 through NRS 118A.530 and contains no section on tenant or renters insurance. Chapter 118, which carries the other landlord and tenant sections, covers housing discrimination, property-tax disclosure and abandonment, and has none either.
- NRS 118A.200(3) lists what every written Nevada rental agreement must contain, including the amount of rent, required fees and their purposes, deposits, and utility responsibilities. Insurance is not among the required provisions, so no Nevada statute sets a minimum or a maximum liability limit a landlord may ask for.
- NRS 118A.220(1)(d) makes void a rental agreement provision under which the tenant 'agrees to the exculpation or limitation of any liability of the landlord arising under law or to indemnify the landlord for that liability or the costs connected therewith if the liability is based upon an act or omission of the landlord or any agent or employee of the landlord,' and subsection 2 lets the tenant recover any actual damages incurred through the inclusion of the prohibited provision.
- The one insurance-like product chapter 118A does regulate is the surety bond a tenant may buy in place of a security deposit. Under NRS 118A.242 a landlord may not demand a security deposit and surety bond together, including the last month's rent, whose total amount or value exceeds 3 months' periodic rent; the landlord need not accept a bond and 'may not require a tenant to purchase a surety bond in lieu of paying all or part of the security deposit.' That section draws no distinction between furnished and unfurnished units.
NRS 118A.220 - statutes change; verify the current text for your situation.
Begin where the coverage figure ends and the responsibility language starts. NRS 118A.220(1)(d) makes void a rental agreement provision under which the tenant 'agrees to the exculpation or limitation of any liability of the landlord arising under law or to indemnify the landlord for that liability or the costs connected therewith if the liability is based upon an act or omission of the landlord or any agent or employee of the landlord.' An insurance paragraph is a natural place for that wording to sit, because it reads like an extension of the coverage ask.
Two details in that quotation do a lot of work. The provision reaches an act or omission of the landlord or any agent or employee, so a clause written around the on-site management company is inside the section too. And it is the tenant's agreement to exculpation, limitation or indemnity that is void, whatever the paragraph is titled.
The remedy is attached to the drafting, not to the fight. Subsection 2 of NRS 118A.220 lets a tenant recover any actual damages incurred through the inclusion of the prohibited provision, so the question it asks is whether the wording was in the agreement, not whether a landlord got to use it.
The amount has no such backing. The section list of chapter 118A was read from NRS 118A.010 through NRS 118A.530 and names no insurance section, and chapter 118, which carries the other landlord and tenant sections, covers housing discrimination, property-tax disclosure and abandonment. The provisions NRS 118A.200(3) requires a written rental agreement to contain - the rent, required fees and their purposes, deposits, utility responsibilities - name no coverage figure at all.
One insurance-like product the chapter does regulate is the surety bond a tenant may buy in place of a security deposit. NRS 118A.242 stops a landlord demanding a deposit and bond together, last month's rent included, whose total amount or value exceeds 3 months' periodic rent. The landlord need not accept a bond at all, and 'may not require a tenant to purchase a surety bond in lieu of paying all or part of the security deposit.' Check NRS 118A.220, NRS 118A.200 and NRS 118A.242 as they read today before you build an argument on any of them.
Nevada Tenant Protections
NRS 118A.220(1)(d) makes void a rental agreement provision by which you agree to the exculpation or limitation of the landlord's liability, or to indemnify the landlord for it, where that liability rests on an act or omission of the landlord or any agent or employee. That wording does not become enforceable simply because you signed underneath it.
Subsection 2 of the same section lets a tenant recover any actual damages incurred through the inclusion of the prohibited provision, which is a right attached to the drafting of the agreement rather than to a landlord's attempt to use it. NRS 118A.200(3) lists what a written rental agreement must contain, including the amount of rent, the fees required and their purposes, deposits and utility responsibilities, so a charge you are asked to pay should be findable in the agreement.
And NRS 118A.242 caps a security deposit and surety bond together, including the last month's rent, at 3 months' periodic rent, leaves a landlord free to refuse a bond, and bars a landlord from requiring a tenant to purchase a surety bond in lieu of paying all or part of the security deposit.
What's Specific to Las Vegas
Figures are the state rule, or the stronger city ordinance where one exists. Verify the current law for your own situation before relying on it.
Our record finds no Las Vegas or Clark County rule on renters insurance. The city's own landlord and tenant brochure describes the local layer as the Las Vegas Municipal Codes for building, fire and zoning, and sends readers to NRS 118A for landlord and tenant law itself.
The same brochure is unusually clear about where a clause argument does not belong. It says the Code Enforcement Division 'does not address mold, civil, criminal and financial disputes between a landlord and tenant' - and a disagreement about an insurance paragraph is a civil and financial dispute, so the building-code desk is not the place it gets resolved.
That leaves the lease, read against NRS 118A.220, as the whole answer in Las Vegas. Two things are worth doing before you sign: get the coverage figure written as a number rather than a standard, since no Nevada figure exists to fall back on, and get any exculpation, limitation or indemnity wording covering the landlord's own act or omission taken out.
Then read the deposit paragraph, because that is where the one regulated insurance-like product turns up. If a surety bond is offered in place of a deposit, NRS 118A.242 holds the deposit and bond together, last month's rent included, to 3 months' periodic rent, and no tenant can be required to buy the bond instead of paying the deposit. That section draws no line between furnished and unfurnished units.
It should be. No Nevada coverage figure could be sourced, so 'adequate insurance' leaves the amount undefined by the one document that defines it.
It should. NRS 118A.200(3) lists what a written rental agreement must contain, and the fees required and their purposes are on that list.
This one carries its own remedy. NRS 118A.220(1)(d) voids that provision, and subsection 2 allows actual damages incurred through its inclusion.
Push back. NRS 118A.242 says a landlord may not require a tenant to purchase a surety bond in lieu of paying all or part of the security deposit.
Sources
The law this guide relies on, and where to read it. Statutes change, so confirm the current text before you act on it.
- NRS 118A.220, read on law.justia.com. Nevada publishes the official text at www.leg.state.nv.us.
Red Flags to Watch Out For
-
Exculpation wording in the paragraph
NRS 118A.220(1)(d) voids a provision agreeing to the exculpation or limitation of the landlord's liability where that liability rests on the landlord's own act or omission.
-
Indemnity reaching the management company
The section names an act or omission of the landlord 'or any agent or employee', so wording built around the on-site manager sits inside NRS 118A.220(1)(d) as well.
-
Adequate coverage with no figure
No Nevada coverage figure could be sourced, so a paragraph without a number leaves the amount open. Ask for the figure to be typed into the lease before signing.
-
A charge the agreement never names
NRS 118A.200(3) requires a written rental agreement to state the fees required and their purposes. Ask which line of your agreement an insurance-related charge is.
-
Deposit and surety bond over the cap
NRS 118A.242 bars demanding a security deposit and surety bond together, last month's rent included, whose total exceeds 3 months' periodic rent.
Your Rights as a Las Vegas Tenant
-
Liability-shifting terms are void
NRS 118A.220(1)(d) voids a provision by which you agree to the exculpation or limitation of the landlord's liability, or to indemnify it, for the landlord's own act or omission.
-
Damages for the inclusion itself
Subsection 2 of NRS 118A.220 lets a tenant recover any actual damages incurred through the inclusion of the prohibited provision in the rental agreement.
-
No coverage figure to meet
Chapter 118A's section list, read from NRS 118A.010 to NRS 118A.530, names no insurance section, and NRS 118A.200(3)'s required provisions name no figure.
-
No forced surety bond
NRS 118A.242 bars a landlord from requiring a tenant to purchase a surety bond in lieu of paying all or part of the security deposit. A landlord need not accept one either.
What To Do - Step by Step
Read the paragraph twice
First pass for the amount and the proof deadline. Second pass for 'exculpate', 'limit', 'indemnify', 'hold harmless' and 'agent or employee' - those words answer a different question.
Check what Nevada actually fixes
The section list of chapter 118A, from NRS 118A.010 through NRS 118A.530, names no insurance section. Read NRS 118A.220 and NRS 118A.242 in their current text before arguing from either.
Strike the liability-shifting wording
Ask for any exculpation, limitation or indemnity language covering the landlord's own act or omission to come out, citing NRS 118A.220(1)(d). Get the edit initialed, not promised by email.
Keep the version you signed
NRS 118A.220(2) ties actual damages to the inclusion of a prohibited provision, so keep a dated copy of the agreement carrying the wording, not only whatever replaces it later.
Check the deposit line too
If a surety bond is offered in place of a deposit, NRS 118A.242 holds the deposit and bond together, last month's rent included, to 3 months' periodic rent.
Send proof, then get help
Send the declarations page by email and file your own copy of what went out. If the paragraph you already signed reads like exculpation or indemnity, a Nevada legal aid office or tenant organization can read it against NRS 118A.220.