Question Regarding Legal Language (Non Valkyrie Related) Vacation Rental

[carolinarider09]

Would someone like to explain what following sentences mean in regards to a vacation rental in North Carolina.

Regarding a mandatory evacuation order. 

However, Tenant will not be entitled to a refund if, prior to taking possession of the property: (a) Tenant refused insurance offered by the Agent that would have compensated Tenant for losses or damages resulting from loss of use of the property due to a mandatory evacuation order, or (b) Tenant purchased such insurance from Agent. 

It appears to me that the only way you can get compensated for a mandatory evacuation from said property is if you purchased insurance.  It matters not if the Government of the state or nation told you that you “MUST” leave no “if ands or buts”. 

And the last part of the paragraph is also concerning.  Here is the statement without the first “if”.

However, Tenant will not be entitled to a refund if, prior to taking possession of the property (if) Tenant purchased such insurance from Agent.

The implication of that sentence is I can get a refund if I did not purchase insurance but the “a” part says something different. 

Comments are appreciated.

[Rams]

Won't advise on the issue of what the language specifically says,  but will say that such language included indicates to me that evacuation has occurred in that past and has a high potential to happen again.  

I might be looking for different accommodations.

Rams

[Jess from VA]

Bill, that is poorly worded.

It sounds like you don't get a refund if you don't get the insurance.

But the way it's worded, you don't get the refund even if you get the insurance.

I think the intent was to give a refund if you get the insurance, but the contract is governed by it's text, not by what you think it means.

They need a better lawyer.  (or whoever wrote the dang thing).  

If they tell you on the phone you get the refund if you get the insurance, but if you sign that contract (as written) the deal is governed by the contract, not the phone call.  See the Parole Evidence Rule, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parol_evidence_rule.  It precludes parties who have reduced their agreement to a final written document from later introducing other evidence, such as the content of oral discussions from earlier in the negotiation process, as evidence of a different intent as to the terms of the contract.

Only sign a properly corrected contract.  Of find another rental.

[Oss]

hard pass

[bassman]

However, Tenant will not be entitled to a refund if, prior to taking possession of the property: (a) Tenant refused insurance offered by the Agent that would have compensated Tenant for losses or damages resulting from loss of use of the property due to a mandatory evacuation order, or (b) Tenant purchased such insurance from Agent.

I'm a little slow on these types of things and find it all very confusing but it looks like you lose whether you buy the insurance or not????

[Moonshot_1]

Guess I don't see the problem here. The issue only comes into play because of a "Mandatory Evacuation Order" which would be due to an impending Act of God. Probably concerning hurricanes in this case.

I don't see why the owner/host of the property should be on the hook for a refund to a tenant if that tenant the ability to insure themself for such an emergency prior to the stay. Particularly if the area is prone to such things like hurricanes.

And in this case it isn't the owner/host kicking the tenant out, it is the government. So again, I don't see the owner/host being responsible for a refund. If the tenant is concerned about this issue, buy vacation insurance to cover such a loss or go somewhere where there is less chance of mandatory evacs.

[Jess from VA]

Unless the owner acts as a self insurer (which he can).

'It's X to rent my property.  If you want a refund due to an evac order, pay me more and I'll give you a refund for the days you lost.'

Whatever the case, the contract language is confusing and unclear.

If there is an insurance company, it should be named in the contract. 

[carolinarider09]

Thanks for the information and feedback gentlemen.

I did not really participate in the contract agreement.  My wife handled that along with my daughter so I did not read the contract in detail (I know bad on me) until yesterday when the notion of a Hurricane was being discussed in the family. 

The forecast for the area has changed a little to include some clouds and rain but nothing major, at this time.  So, I suspect  we will be ok. 

However, it won't happen again.  Unless we all agree to the interpretation of the contract.  By the way, the insurance cost for a seven (7) day say was around $500 (about 10% of the rental cost).

[Rams]

However, Tenant will not be entitled to a refund if, prior to taking possession of the property: (a) Tenant refused insurance offered by the Agent that would have compensated Tenant for losses or damages resulting from loss of use of the property due to a mandatory evacuation order, or (b) Tenant purchased such insurance from Agent.

I'm a little slow on these types of things and find it all very confusing but it looks like you lose whether you buy the insurance or not????

Agreed, it appears to me that the only way to get your money back in the case of evacuation is if, you bought the insurance.   The "business" isn't giving any money back in this situation whether the insurance is bought or not..

Rams

[carolinarider09]

Agreed, it appears to me that the only way to get your money back in the case of evacuation is if, you bought the insurance.   The "business" isn't giving any money back in this situation whether the insurance is bought or not..

Rams

That is probably the intended case for the event being discussed.  But, if that is the case, why not just state it this way. 

Someting like:  "Refunds are not granted or given for any reason other that as specially stated in the contract.  For events such as hurricanes and wildfires, insurance may be purchased to cover such events and minimize the loss of funds due to natural emergencies beyond the control of the owner.