Make sure the risk you transferred actually transferred.

Your leases are supposed to push tenant-caused risk onto tenants, through insurance requirements, additional-insured status, and waivers. The problem is that the lease language, the certificates on file, and the actual endorsements often do not match, and the gap only appears when a tenant-caused loss arrives. This review reconciles all three.

Get a quote Compare your coverage

Ready to talk? Get a quote. Want a read first? Compare your coverage.

A tenant and lease risk review checks three things against each other: what your leases require tenants to carry, what the certificates and endorsements on file actually provide, and where the gaps leave you exposed to a tenant-caused loss. The goal is to confirm the risk transfer you wrote into the lease is genuinely in force, rather than assumed from a certificate.

Why risk transfer quietly fails

A lease can require the right coverage, additional-insured status, and a waiver of subrogation, and still leave you exposed if the tenant never actually endorsed it. A certificate of insurance summarizes a policy but grants no rights; the endorsement is what counts. Owners routinely collect certificates, file them, and assume protection that the underlying policies do not deliver, until a tenant-caused fire or injury tests it.

What we reconcile

We line up the insurance and indemnity provisions in your leases against the certificates and endorsements your tenants have actually provided, and against your own policy. We flag missing additional-insured endorsements, absent waivers, inadequate limits, lapsed coverage, and inconsistencies between what different leases require. The output is a clear list of where the transfer holds and where it does not.

How it works

Send your leases, your tenant certificates, and your current policy. We reconcile them, identify every gap and mismatch, and tell you exactly what to fix, lease language to tighten at renewal, endorsements to require, and tracking to put in place, so the protection you negotiated is actually there when a tenant causes a loss.

Frequently asked

Tenant & Lease Risk Review, answered.

Why isn't a tenant's certificate of insurance enough?

Because a certificate summarizes a policy as of its issue date and grants no rights on its own. The additional-insured status or waiver your lease requires only exists if the tenant's policy was actually endorsed to provide it. A certificate can show coverage that was never added, which is why we verify the endorsements, not just the paper.

What does the lease need to require?

Specific coverages and limits, additional-insured status on the tenant's liability policy, a waiver of subrogation, and evidence by endorsement, not just certificate. Vague or inconsistent insurance provisions across leases are a common source of failed risk transfer, which is why aligning the lease language matters as much as checking the certificates.

What happens if a tenant causes a loss and the transfer failed?

The loss can fall back on you and your policy, with a higher claim, a deductible, and potential premium impact you thought a tenant's coverage would absorb. Reconciling the leases and endorsements ahead of time is how owners keep a tenant-caused loss from becoming their own.

Can you do this across a whole portfolio?

Yes. For owners with multiple buildings and many tenants, inconsistent lease requirements and untracked certificates are exactly where exposure hides. We can review the portfolio's leases and tenant coverage together and set up a tracking approach so the transfer stays current.

Related resources

Keep going.

Article