In Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, No. 1-23-0833, 2024 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1372, the Appellate Court of Illinois considered whether the terms of a lease agreement limited a tenant’s liability for fire damages, a fire caused by her negligence, to her apartment unit only. The plaintiff insured the subject apartment building, which incurred damage to several units as result of a fire in the tenant’s unit. The lease defined “Premises” as the specific apartment unit occupied by the tenant and held the tenant responsible for damage caused to the Premises. While the court found that the lease permitted the plaintiff to subrogate against the tenant, it held that the lease terms limited the damages to the tenant’s apartment unit only.
In Gonzalez, the plaintiff’s insured owned a multi-unit apartment building in Chicago. In September 2019, the building owner entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for apartment Unit 601. The lease stated that Unit 601 was the “Leased Address (Premises).” Another provision stated that building owner “hereby leases to Tenant(s) and Tenant(s) hereby leases from Landlord(s) for use as a private dwelling only, the Premises, together with the fixtures and appliances (if any) in the premises…” The lease also stated that “Tenant shall be liable for any damage done to the premises as a result of Tenant’s or Tenant’s invitees, guests or others authorized to reside in the Premises [sic] direct action, negligence, or failure to inform Landlord of repairs necessary to prevent damage to the Premises.”Continue Reading
In Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. a/s/o Michael Sacks v. Koser, No. 1340 MDA 2023, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 574, 2023 PA Super 252 (Mutual Benefit), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania discussed whether a landlord’s property insurer could file a subrogation action against tenants that had negligently damaged the landlord’s property. Despite there being more than one clause in the lease holding the tenants liable for the damages, the court held that because there was a provision requiring the landlord, not the tenants, to insure the leased building, the insurer could not subrogate against the tenants.
In Pennsylvania, a tenant’s liability for damage to a leased premises in a subrogation action brought by a landlord’s insurer is determined by the reasonable expectation of the parties to the lease agreement. Under this approach, to determine if subrogation is permitted, the court considers the circumstances of the case and examines the terms of the lease agreement.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- CPSC Recalls
- Subrogation
- Podcast
- CPSC Warning
- Uncategorized
- Water Loss
- Pennsylvania
- Negligence
- Texas
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- New York
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Cargo - Transportation
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Evidence
Tags
- Product Liability
- Products Liability
- Subrogation
- Texas
- Louisiana
- Podcast
- Subro Sessions
- Certificate of Merit
- Expert Qualifications
- Experts
- Amazon
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Construction Defects
- Amazon-eBay
- Contracts
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Negligent Undertaking
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Arizona
- Warranty - Implied
- Construction Contracts
- Maryland
- Made Whole
- Georgia
- Statute of Repose
- Illinois
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- West Virginia
- Pennsylvania
- Independent Duty
- Limitation of Liability
- Negligence
- Ohio
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Water Damage
- Connecticut
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Public Policy
- Unconscionable
- Missouri
- Parties
- Design Defect
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- New York
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility