A bike on a porch is a different question.

Generally yes, as personal property, and subject to the same three limitations that apply on a homeowners policy.

Your deductible applies, so an item worth less than it produces no claim at all. Settlement may be at depreciated value unless replacement cost has been added. And some policies limit what they will pay for property away from the residence, which matters because recreational gear spends its life away from where it is kept. There is a fourth issue that is specific to renting. Shared storage, whether that is a communal bike room, a shared garage or a porch, is not a locked private space, and theft from one is a common loss that policies treat inconsistently. Ask specifically about theft from shared or common areas rather than assuming the general contents coverage handles it, because that is where the difference between two renters policies shows up most clearly.

Possibly in part, and it is not the same as having their own.

Homeowners forms commonly extend some personal property coverage to a student living away from the residence, but that extension is typically limited to a percentage of the contents limit rather than the full amount, and the conditions attached vary between carriers and can depend on things like residency and age. It is worth asking your carrier precisely what yours does. Two further points matter more than people expect. The extension addresses belongings, and the liability question for a student living in their own place is separate and worth asking about specifically. And a valuable bike is exactly the kind of item that a percentage-of-contents extension handles badly, because the item is worth a great deal relative to the total. A renters policy in the student's own name, with the bike scheduled if it is worth enough, is frequently the cleaner answer to both.

It depends on the policy and on the arrangement, and it is worth establishing before rather than after.

Coverage on many policies follows the item rather than the person, so an item damaged while somebody else was using it with your permission is often treated the same way as if you had been using it. That is a general shape rather than a rule though, it varies between forms, and it is not universal. Regular use by the same person is a different question from an occasional loan, and somebody who uses your kayak most weekends looks less like a borrower and more like a joint user, which some policies would expect to know about. There is also the liability side, which is the part people forget. If somebody is injured while using your equipment, the question of whose policy responds is a genuinely complicated one, and it is better answered in advance.

It depends on the item, and the honest answer is that a household usually needs a mixture rather than one approach applied to everything.

Scheduling onto an existing policy suits items that are essentially valuable property, that do not move under their own power, and where the main exposure is theft or damage. A standalone policy suits anything that operates, carries a passenger, leaves the property under its own power or creates liability while in use, because those exposures are what a purpose-built form is written around and what a homeowners contents sublimit is not. The practical test is to ask what happens if the item hurts somebody rather than what happens if it is stolen. Where the answer to the first question is serious, a standalone policy is usually the right home. We are happy to go through the list item by item and tell you which is which, including where the answer is that what you already have is fine.

It depends on the item and on the policy, and this is one of the more common ways a claim turns into an argument.

Coverage on many recreational policies follows the item rather than the person, so a friend or family member using it with your permission is often covered in the same way a permitted driver is on a car policy. But that is a general shape rather than a rule, it varies between forms, and some policies limit or exclude use by people who are not named. Regular use by the same person is a different question again from an occasional loan, and someone who uses your boat or your side-by-side most weekends is closer to an operator the carrier would expect to know about. The safest approach is to tell us who actually uses each thing, because it costs nothing to have it set up correctly and it is a bad conversation to have after somebody is hurt.

Sometimes the honest answer is no, and we would rather say so than sell you something.

A modest item that never leaves the property, that would not seriously injure anybody, and that sits comfortably under your existing contents coverage may genuinely be fine where it is. What changes the answer is not how often it is used but what it can do. Something that carries a passenger, reaches a real speed, tows something, goes on public water or leaves the property under its own power creates a liability exposure that exists whether it is used once a year or every weekend, and that exposure does not scale down with usage. There is a second thing worth weighing. Items used infrequently spend most of the year in storage, which is where a great many theft and weather losses actually happen, and where coverage differences between policies show up most clearly.