Thread: Bad PR for Orange Door people, insurance

Last night on KPIX here in San Francisco, the "ConsumerWatch" reporter did a story on how the Public Storage tenant insurance has some real trouble. If you're in the bay area, be prepared to get some questions.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...ublic-storage/

So what's new? They push it, do something wrong, make us as an industry collectively look bad, then we all pay the price when the State gets involved.

We offer an insurance booklet, have them sign the addendum declining insurance at the time of rental and let them deal with it on their own at their leisure. We don't 'sell' insurance, we just offer an informational brochure.

Maybe I'm crossing a line, but I do suggest the customer check with their homeowner's, business or renter's insurance agent before purchasing any new insurance. But maybe I'm not crossing that line because I'm telling them to check with a licensed insurance agent.

Public Storage has always had claims about burglary all you have to do is google them and see ALL the lawsuits and issues they have. When I have people call me and tell me "Oh are you like Public Storage and do $1 for the first month?" I explain to them that it's not only $1 (they charge an admin fee and taxes) and we are NOTHING like Public Storage. You get what you pay for. I tell people you really should google whatever storage company you decide to chose or check with the BBA

"What'chu talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

Damage control time ... One would think PS will NOW be all over rectifying this ASAP. But it's unfortunate how it can tarnish the whole industry as all consumers often remember is that problem with storage insurance ...

This story alone has me reviewing my policy again from the perspective of what would my tenants insurance company say to items 'stolen' but no apparent forced entry.

Did you read all the comments posted below the article? Sheesh! Once again, I am so happy our first job in the industry was with U-Haul and NOT PS!

Originally Posted by Lisa T

Did you read all the comments posted below the article? Sheesh! Once again, I am so happy our first job in the industry was with U-Haul and NOT PS!

Not sticking up for them but I have a related question for all you out there in storage land.

Do you think it is wise to require that your tenants either provide their own insurance( you get a copy of the policy confirming it) or they buy insurance from the supplier you use to provide this insurance?

If anyone has had to deal with a major disaster like a fire, tornado, etc I am sure you would have a different opinion than someone who has not had any problems.

i would like some feedback from everyone.

Thanks

P.S. Many other companies are requiring it, this is not unique to PS.

Mel,

I like the fact that we offer it but don't require it. Some people really don't think their stuff is worth the extra $8 per month! As long as we have made it clear that we do not insure their items and have their written acknowledgment as such, then I'm good with that.

Mel- We're only 400 units, and I've never thought much of tenant insurance coverage and tell my customers so when I talk to them. I haven't looked into it very deeply, but it seems to me to be just another way for the facility to turn a few bucks and not really provide a quality protection against loss. I have my customers initial that they WILL provide their own insurance coverage, as mine only protects the structure and not their contents. It just doesn't seem worth the few bucks a facility my size would generate selling insurance to every 10th customer. In 25 years, I've probably been asked if I could sell them coverage 10 times.

We did have someone try to claim that their belongings had been chewed on by rodents, and they attempted to come after us to fix it. It was easy enough for me to point to the clause where it said they WILL provide their own insurance and refer them to their own carrier. We both know they didn't have insurance, but they signed and agreed that they either did have it or would provide it on their own. That conversation ended right there. If they admitted they didn't have it, then they weren't compliant with the contract, all bets were off.