Do you think the grad students in your apartment ever have family to stay? What about friends? What about couchsurfers (if there are any meaningful number of students in your apartment, it's very likely at least one an active couchsurfer)?
Who do you think poses a bigger risk to other tenants, my cousin's friend who's crashing with me in Chicago while he finds a place to stay permanently, or someone with 100 positive reviews on AirBnB? 20 positive reviews on AirBnB? Where do we draw the line on what's ethical here? I think most people wouldn't see any problem with the first scenario but would with the second, but the risk is probably lower in the second scenario.
(Perhaps AirBnB should purchase insurance on behalf of AirBnB landlords. I'm sure they have data on how often these kinds of problems occur and I can't imagine it being too expensive)
The difference is that the building's management company takes responsibility for the typical temporary guests of those who live in the building. AirBnB does not take any responsibility for the guests of AirBnB hosts. Moreover, nothing requires an AirBnB host to only take people with 20+ positive reviews. It's entirely up to the AirBnB host. The host has full control over the decision, even though his decision exposes the rest of us to risk.
It looks like AirBnB will already cover some kinds of theft or vandalism. It presumably wouldn't be too hard for them to extend that to personal injury in shared spaces, which would partly address your concern.
Also, the building management company would evict tenants who had troublesome guests, which provides the tenant (AirBnB host) with an incentive to only take people who are reliable.
Why do you presume it would be easy for them to provide personal injury protection across their entire inventory of rentals? The set of circumstances that led to their particular current coverage of theft and vandalism is worth revisiting.
Well, it's pretty much a textbook case for insurance: a very small risk spread across a large number of rentals where the worst case is bad. AirBnB has the advantage that they could tailor the premium based on the exact parameters of the rental.
If it's so straightforward for Airbnb to insure the things you're talking about, why is the "Host Guarantee" they came up with along with Lloyds of London so restrictive? For instance: if you let a place out to an Airbnb guest, and they forget to lock the door, and your place is burgled as a result, you're not (it seems) covered.
Comments
Do you think the grad students in your apartment ever have family to stay? What about friends? What about couchsurfers (if there are any meaningful number of students in your apartment, it's very likely at least one an active couchsurfer)?
Who do you think poses a bigger risk to other tenants, my cousin's friend who's crashing with me in Chicago while he finds a place to stay permanently, or someone with 100 positive reviews on AirBnB? 20 positive reviews on AirBnB? Where do we draw the line on what's ethical here? I think most people wouldn't see any problem with the first scenario but would with the second, but the risk is probably lower in the second scenario.
(Perhaps AirBnB should purchase insurance on behalf of AirBnB landlords. I'm sure they have data on how often these kinds of problems occur and I can't imagine it being too expensive)
EDIT: Looks like they already do have insurance of some kind: https://www.airbnb.com/guarantee
The difference is that the building's management company takes responsibility for the typical temporary guests of those who live in the building. AirBnB does not take any responsibility for the guests of AirBnB hosts. Moreover, nothing requires an AirBnB host to only take people with 20+ positive reviews. It's entirely up to the AirBnB host. The host has full control over the decision, even though his decision exposes the rest of us to risk.
It looks like AirBnB will already cover some kinds of theft or vandalism. It presumably wouldn't be too hard for them to extend that to personal injury in shared spaces, which would partly address your concern.
Also, the building management company would evict tenants who had troublesome guests, which provides the tenant (AirBnB host) with an incentive to only take people who are reliable.
Why do you presume it would be easy for them to provide personal injury protection across their entire inventory of rentals? The set of circumstances that led to their particular current coverage of theft and vandalism is worth revisiting.
Well, it's pretty much a textbook case for insurance: a very small risk spread across a large number of rentals where the worst case is bad. AirBnB has the advantage that they could tailor the premium based on the exact parameters of the rental.
If it's so straightforward for Airbnb to insure the things you're talking about, why is the "Host Guarantee" they came up with along with Lloyds of London so restrictive? For instance: if you let a place out to an Airbnb guest, and they forget to lock the door, and your place is burgled as a result, you're not (it seems) covered.