
In Am. Reliable Ins. Co. v. Addington., No. 3:21-CV-00848, __ F.Supp.3d __, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218436, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (the District Court) considered whether a tenant’s live-in partner and the partner’s adult son constituted a “family” in the underlying lease and, thus, were implied co-insureds under the Sutton Rule. The District Court determined that the arrangement did constitute a “family” and that the Sutton Rule barred subrogation.
Am. Reliable Ins. involved rental property in Dickson, Tennessee (the Property), owned by Bill Brazzel (Brazzel) and insured by American Reliable Insurance Company (ARIC). Jeffrey Pimer (Pimer) entered a lease with Brazzel on June 9, 2005, to rent the Property. In relevant part, the lease stated the Property was “to be used and occupied by the Lessee solely as a private dwelling for the Lessee and family.” The lease did not explicitly define the term “family.”
Sometime after execution of the lease, Laurie Addington (Addington) and her adult son, Joshua Perez (Perez) moved into the property with Pimer. Pimer referred to Addington and Perez as his “family” and introduced them as such to Brazzel. Brazzel never objected to Addington and/or Perez living at the property, nor did Brazzel ever require Addington and/or Perez sign a separate lease to reside at the property or collect rent from them.
On November 13, 2019, a fire occurred at the Property, allegedly due to the misuse of a kerosene heater by Addington and/or Perez. ARIC filed an initial subrogation action against Addington and Perez that was dismissed without prejudice based on a finding that the “Sutton Rule” applied. Under Tennessee’s version of the Sutton Rule, “absent an express agreement to the contrary in a lease, a tenant and his or her landlord are implied co-insureds under the landlord’s fire insurance policy.” Here, the lease was silent as to insurance, meaning that the tenant was an implied co-insured under the landlord’s policy.
However, the District Court noted that neither Addington or Perez’s names were on the underlying lease and allowed ARIC to refile on a limited basis. Specifically, the District Court stated its Sutton Rule analysis may not apply if Addington and Perez “were not tenants subject to the terms of the Lease.”
ARIC took advantage of the District Court’s opening and refiled the action, asserting that Addington and Perez were not tenants and, thus, not entitled to Sutton Rule protection. Following discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Addington and Perez were “family” under the terms of the lease language and, thus, were tenants and implied co-insureds pursuant to the Sutton Rule. ARIC argued that the lease was between Pimer and Brazzel only and since neither Addington nor Perez were named on the lease, they were not implied co-insureds.
The District Court ultimately agreed with Addington and Perez, finding that Pimer, Addington, and Perez qualified as a “family” as described in the lease. Specifically, the District Court turned to the definition of “family” found in three other cases, noting that Pimer, Addington, and Perez qualified under each definition. Specifically, Pimer, Addington and Perez lived as “(1) a ‘collection of persons forming a domestic household’…; (2) a ‘group of not more than four persons who [were] not related by blood, marriage, or adoption living together as a common household dwelling unit’ and/or (3) a ‘group of individuals living under one roof.’” Since Pimer, Addington and Perez were a “family,” they were subject to the lease and the Sutton Rule applied, making them implied co-insureds under the landlord’s policy.
The District Court considered and rejected ARIC’s contention that finding Pimer, Addington and Perez were a family would strain the definition of “family” and have “far reaching consequences both in terms of landlord tenant law as well as other areas of contract law.” The District Court noted the decision was not based solely on Pimer’s assertion that Addington and Perez were his family but was based on several factors. Specifically, the District Court stated that Pimer referred to Addington and Perez as his family to Brazzel, Brazzel had knowledge of and gave consent to Addington and Perez living at the property as a family, and Brazzel never required a separate lease from Addington and Perez. The District Court noted that Addington and Perez were similarly situated to the tortfeasor in Sutton: neither paid rent, neither were on the lease, but all were tenants at the property. The District Court found that the policy considerations outlined in the Sutton Rule applied and that “an accepted definition of family comfortably encompasses the relationship of Pimer, Addington and Perez.”
Subrogation professionals must consider the specifics of lease construction and living arrangements when evaluating the potential applicability of the Sutton Rule. Even if residents are not legally married or related by blood to the named lessee, depending on the totality of circumstances they may still qualify as an implied co-insured under the Sutton Rule.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- CPSC Recalls
- Construction Defects
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- Minnesota
- California
- Experts – Daubert
- Maryland
- Jurisdiction
- CPSC Warning
- Rhode Island
- Experts - Reliability
- Podcast
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Workers' Compensation
- Uncategorized
- Negligence
- New York
- Contracts
- Cargo - Transportation
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Arbitration
- Texas
- Pennsylvania
- AIA Contracts
- Evidence
- Florida
- Economic Loss Rule
- Malpractice
- Wyoming
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Water Loss
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Arkansas
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Product Liability
- Arizona
- Certificate of Merit
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Oklahoma
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Georgia
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Limitation of Liability
- Mississippi
- Made Whole
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Massachusetts
- Landlord
- Tenant
- Building Code
- Causation
- Architects-Engineers
Tags
- Subrogation
- Products Liability
- Construction Defects
- Product Liability
- Podcast
- Minnesota
- California
- Subro Sessions
- Experts
- Jurisdiction
- Maryland
- Texas
- Statute of Repose
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Experts – Daubert
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Rhode Island
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Contracts
- Negligence
- Civil Procedure
- Landlord-Tenant
- Experts - Reliability
- Pennsylvania
- Georgia
- Certificate of Merit
- Louisiana
- Amazon-eBay
- Made Whole
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- New York
- Florida
- Construction Contracts
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Illinois
- Experts – Qualifications
- New Jersey
- Parties
- Ohio
- Right to Repair Act
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Arizona
- Sutton Doctrine
- West Virginia
- Indiana
- Design Defect
- Spoliation
- Water Damage
- Evidence
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Connecticut
- Damages
- Privity
- Condominiums
- Massachusetts
- Tennessee
- Statute of Limitations
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Limitation of Liability
- Apportionment
- Expert Qualifications
- Exculpatory Clause
- Amazon
- Arbitration
- Negligence – Duty
- Wisconsin
- Workers’ Compensation
- Public Policy
- Missouri
- Negligent Undertaking
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Delaware
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Indemnification
- Architects-Engineers
- Washington
- AIA Contract
- Warranty - Implied
- Res Judicata
- Settlement
- Statute of Limitations - Repose
- Improvement
- Michigan
- Malpractice
- Idaho
- Internet Sales
- Non-Party at Fault
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Gross Negligence
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Mississippi
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Independent Duty
- Cargo-Transportation
- Contribution
- Implied Warranty of Habitability
- Warranty - Construction
- North Carolina
- Utah
- Standing
- Comparative Fault
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Res Ipsa
- New Mexico
- Contracts - Formation
- Unconscionable
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Nevada
- Virginia
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Lithium-ion battery
- Burden of Proof
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- New Hampshire
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Insurable Interest
- Joint-Tortfeasors
- Arkansas
- Kentucky
- Daubert
- Fire - Cigarettes
- Colorado
- Causation
- Third Party
- Discovery-Sanctions
- Accepted Work
- Malfunction Theory
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Privilege
- Betterment
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Insurance Coverage
- First Party Claims
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- Products Liability - Foreseeability
- Discovery - Experts
- MCS-90
- Substantial Completion
- Reimbursement
- Assignment
- Counterclaim
- Products Liability; Malfunction Theory
- Economic Loss Rule
- Unfair Trade Practices
- Evidence – Probative Value
- Parties – Real Party in Interest
- Status of Repose
- Evidence - Public
- Construction Defects - Fixtures
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Additional Insured
- Trespass
- Contract
- COVID-19
- Incorporation by Reference
- Damages – Emotional Distress
- Oregon
- Third Party Spoliation
- No-Fault Subrogation
- Products Liability; Mississippi
- Inverse Condemnation
- Jury Instructions
- Food and Beverage
- South Carolina
- California Court of Appeals Holds Subrogating Carrier Cannot Assert Claims of Its Suspended Insured
- Debt Collection
- Medical Benefits
- Montreal Convention
- Immunity
- Products Li
- Wyoming
- Release
- Liens
- Kansas
Authors
Archives
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- December 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- February 2013