Renters Insurance Clause
in Phoenix, AZ
How this page is sourced
Statutes verified against primary state sources
Every statute cited here was read in its published text before this page went live: on the state's own site where that site can be reached, otherwise on a republished copy of the code. Court decisions are quoted from the published opinion and linked to it, so you can read the original yourself.
Primary sourcesNot legal advice
Content verified against primary state statutes before publicationLast updated: October 2026
What it actually means, what Arizona law says, what's specific to Phoenix - and exactly what to do. In plain English.
Quick Summary - What You Need to Know
- No section we read in Arizona's landlord-tenant act requires renters insurance or sets a minimum or maximum amount.
- A landlord may still require a policy as a lease term (A.R.S. § 33-1314).
- Phoenix leases typically ask for $100,000 in personal liability, a figure the landlord chose.
- Clauses that waive your rights or limit the landlord's liability are void (A.R.S. § 33-1315).
- Our record of the Phoenix code holds no ordinance on renters insurance.
Copy and send: Before you sign the lease, after reading the renters insurance clause and the sentences around it
Questions about the insurance clause
Fill in the brackets and keep a copy of what you send.
How Arizona compares
Typical required liability coverage, state by state
$100kNo figureGuide coming soonYou are here
See all 26 cities as a chart
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.
Understanding the Renters Insurance Clause
This page is for Phoenix renters whose lease says to carry renters insurance, usually personal liability coverage with proof due before you get keys. The requirement comes from the lease you sign, so the details sit in the clause itself: the coverage amount, who you may buy from, what happens if the policy lapses, and any sentence about the landlord's own liability.
Read those lines closely and ask for changes in writing before you sign.
What renters assume
If my lease makes me buy insurance, my policy must cover whatever goes wrong in the unit, even repairs the landlord ignored.
What is actually true
Your policy covers your belongings and damage you cause. If the lease uses the insurance requirement to limit the landlord's liability, A.R.S. § 33-1315 voids that clause.
Eleven of the 26 states on this chart cluster at the same $100,000 mark, and two write that number into a statute: Oregon's cap and the waterbed rule in California's Civil Code 1940.5. Everywhere else, Arizona included, it's an insurance-industry default your landlord copied into the lease.
Renters Insurance Clause Example - What the Wording Looks Like in Phoenix, AZ
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.
The capitals belong to the endorsement rather than to us, and the court quoted only part of the longer letter this paragraph came from.
THE INSURANCE IS TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR YOUR PERSONAL POSSESSIONS. CHATHAM HILLS APARTMENTS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR PROPERTY IN CASE OF AN ACCIDENT.
Quoted from the published opinion in Whitledge v. Klein, 348 Ill. App. 3d 1059 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 2004). Judicial opinions are not subject to copyright; the lease language is reproduced in limited part for commentary under 17 U.S.C. § 107.
What the 4 highlighted phrases mean
“IS TO PROVIDE”
A statement of purpose, which in Arizona is more useful than it sounds. The act itself is silent - there is no insurance provision anywhere in Title 33, Chapter 10 - and A.R.S. § 33-1314 lets the parties agree to terms the act does not prohibit. So the enforceability question is answered by what the clause is doing, and a clause that says out loud what the policy is for has told you which side of § 33-1315 it is standing on.
“PROTECTION”
The Arizona act attaches no number to this. The Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act sets no minimum or maximum required coverage amount, so it gives a landlord no floor to point at and you no ceiling. Whatever limit ends up in the lease is the limit, and if the lease leaves it to be specified later, then it has been left to be specified by the party who wrote the lease.
See the example
“CHATHAM HILLS APARTMENTS”
The landlord writing itself into the sentence, immediately before the words that matter. This is the construction A.R.S. § 33-1315 is pointed at: it voids provisions by which a tenant waives rights under the act or by which the landlord's liability is limited. The Illinois court in Whitledge was reading a different statute in a different state, so it settles nothing here; what it shows is the manoeuvre being tried, and a court holding that routing the loss through a required renters policy comes to the same thing as a clause saying the landlord is not liable.
See the example
“IN CASE OF AN ACCIDENT”
A catch-all ending, and it is the kind of phrase that sounds like boilerplate until something burns. The Arizona test does not depend on how wide the wording is. It depends on whether the clause waives a right the act gives you or limits the landlord's liability, and a broad word does not save a clause that does either - nor condemn one that does neither. Treat the summary here as a place to start reading § 33-1315, not as the answer.
The endorsement did not stop the tenants' lawsuit. Answering certified questions, the Illinois Appellate Court held that section 1 of the Illinois Landlord and Tenant Act (765 ILCS 705/1) voids not only exculpatory lease clauses but also, “by clear and necessary implication,” lease language that shifts the landlord's own negligence onto the tenant through a required renters-insurance or indemnity arrangement. The court's reason is the sentence to remember: “an indemnity clause in a lease has the same effect as a lease exculpatory clause: the landlord does not pay.” So the renters-insurance endorsement did not require dismissal of the tenants' fire-damage negligence suit, and the tenants' insurers, standing in the tenants' shoes, got the same statutory protection the tenants had. For a renter the point is narrow and useful: being made to buy a policy is one thing, and being made to buy the landlord's way out of its own negligence is another.
How this state's law treats this clause
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.
Arizona Law on Renters Insurance Clause
- The Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act contains no insurance provision anywhere in Title 33, Chapter 10.
- A.R.S. 33-1314 lets the parties agree to any term not prohibited by the act, which covers an insurance requirement.
- A.R.S. 33-1315 voids clauses that waive tenant rights or limit the landlord's liability.
- The Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act sets no minimum or maximum required coverage amount.
Sources include A.R.S. § 33-1314 - statutes change; verify the current text for your situation.
Our record of Arizona law finds no insurance provision in the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (Title 33, Chapter 10), and no section we read sets a minimum or maximum coverage amount. Three rules in the act bear on an insurance clause:
- Terms you agree to (A.R.S. § 33-1314). The parties may agree to any term the act does not prohibit, which covers an insurance requirement.
- No waivers (A.R.S. § 33-1315). A lease clause that waives your rights under the act is void.
- No limits on the landlord's liability (A.R.S. § 33-1315). A clause that limits the landlord's liability is void too, even when it sits inside the insurance paragraph.
Read the current text of these sections before you rely on them. Arizona publishes its statutes at azleg.gov.
What's Specific to Phoenix
Our record of the Phoenix code holds no ordinance on renters insurance, which leaves the clause you signed as the document that answers it. Phoenix leases typically ask for $100,000 in personal liability, a figure the landlord chose, not the state.
Some managed complexes offer a policy billed with rent. Ask what it costs and whether a policy you buy yourself will satisfy the clause.
Good. A vague 'adequate insurance' line lets the property manager decide the number later.
Good. No section we read names an approved insurer, so get 'any licensed insurer' written into the lease.
Red flag. A.R.S. § 33-1315 voids clauses that limit the landlord's liability, whatever your policy or the lease says.
Ask to change it. Additional interest, which only sends the landlord lapse notices, is the narrower version.
Sources
The law this guide relies on, and where to read it. Statutes change, so confirm the current text before you act on it.
- A.R.S. § 33-1314 on azleg.gov, Arizona's own publication of its statutes.
Red Flags to Watch Out For
-
Wording that shifts the landlord's liability
Fine print putting the landlord's liability on you or your policy. A.R.S. § 33-1315 voids clauses that limit a landlord's liability, even after you sign.
-
Landlord named as additional insured
This can pull your policy toward the landlord's own exposure. Additional interest is the usual ask: it only tells them if your policy lapses.
-
No dollar amount stated
'Adequate' or 'sufficient' coverage with no number lets the manager raise the bar mid-lease. Ask for a fixed figure before you sign.
-
Forced-placed policy billed back
A clause letting the landlord buy coverage for you and charge it to your account. Ask for the monthly rate in writing before you sign.
-
Waiver of subrogation against the landlord
This makes your insurer give up recovering from the landlord after a loss. Read it against A.R.S. § 33-1315 before you initial anything.
Your Rights as a Phoenix Tenant
-
Waivers of your rights are void
A.R.S. § 33-1315 voids lease clauses that waive your rights under the act. Signing one does not make it enforceable against you.
-
The landlord keeps its own liability
The same section voids clauses that limit the landlord's liability, so an insurance requirement cannot be rewritten into a liability shield.
-
The amount is yours to negotiate
No Arizona section we read sets a coverage floor or ceiling, so the figure is a lease term you can question before signing.
-
Your choice of insurer
No section we read names an approved insurer. Before you sign, ask in writing whether a policy from any licensed insurer will satisfy the clause.
What To Do - Step by Step
Find the insurance paragraph
Search the lease for 'insurance,' 'liability' and 'indemnify.' Note the amount and whether it says additional insured or additional interest.
Read the sentences around it
Flag any sentence that waives your rights or limits the landlord's liability. A.R.S. § 33-1315 voids those clauses.
Shop before you bundle
Get quotes from a few licensed insurers before accepting the leasing office's monthly add-on.
Get changes initialed
If you change the amount or swap additional insured for additional interest, get it written into the lease and initialed, not promised in an email.
Keep proof of your policy
Bring the declarations page to move-in, keep the policy active for the whole lease, and tell the manager about any lapse if the lease asks you to.
Check the law, then get help
Read the current text of A.R.S. §§ 33-1314 and 33-1315. The Arizona Attorney General's landlord-tenant resources or a Maricopa County legal aid office can help.
Why renters trust LeaseDecoded
Frequently Asked Questions
Renters Insurance rules near Arizona
The same clause in the nearest states we cover.
Was this guide helpful?Your answer is anonymous and helps us fix what is unclear.