Unless there is something badly wrong with the land it is an asset, not a liability.
Unless there is something badly wrong with the land it is an asset, not a liability.
Asset
It sorta makes sense that you would own a car. If you do not own a car why would you want liability insurance?
Whatever coverage amount you wish and that the company will accept, You can obtain liability insurance on vacant land.
no it does not, liability covers only the second party.
The property Owners Liability Insurance does not extend coverage to a Tenant. This is one reason a tenant might want to buy their own tenants liability coverage for their own protection.
Absolutely! You should have a general liability policy because YOU can be held liable and will be named in a lawsuit if any bodily injury or property damage occurs to a third party on that property. Is this land adjacent to your home? Is it officially a park or walking trail?
Personal Liability
Direct liability is holding the actor responsible for his or her own actions. Respondeat superior liability is holding an employer responsible for an employee's actions.
Premises and operations.
In most cases I would say no. Presumably, Liability would already have been addressed and covered in your lease agreement. Most commercial lease contracts would specify that the renter will provide their own liability and injury coverage. If yours does not. I would suggest you modify it to do so.
If the vehicle is titled to the parents then little chance of removing liability from mom and dad. If child is titled owner, and has their own auto policy then very likely the parent's can separate their own liability.