[RPPTL LandTen] Such a basic question . . .
The Fifth District holds the strict (“pure Sutton”) rule as to whether an insured can seek indemnification/subrogation against a tenant that pays landlord’s insurance premiums through pro-rata lease payments is rejected in favor of a case by case analysis based upon the intent of the parties.
Case is below.
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
UNDERWRITERS OF LLOYDS OF LONDON, etc., Appellant,
v.
CAPE PUBLICATIONS, INC., d/b/a Florida Today, Appellee.
No. 5D10–3384.
June 17, 2011.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Lisa Davidson http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=0331087401&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=PROFILER-WLD&tf=-1&findtype=h&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 , Judge.
Alexander Muszynski, III http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=0344253301&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=PROFILER-WLD&tf=-1&findtype=h&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 , and Cameron E. Shackelford http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=0341818701&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=PROFILER-WLD&tf=-1&findtype=h&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 of Meier, Bonner, Muszynski, O'Dell & Harvey, P.A., Longwood, for Appellant.
L. Chuck Lira http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=0308329301&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=PROFILER-WLD&tf=-1&findtype=h&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 of Law Offices of Jack D. Evans, Tampa, for Appellee.
*1 The issue in this appeal is whether Underwriters of Lloyds of London (hereafter “Lloyds”) is precluded from bringing a subrogation action because Cape Publications, Inc.'s commercial lease evidenced an intent that it be considered a beneficiary or co-insured under the property and casualty insurance policy maintained by Harry and Wendy Brandon (hereafter “Brandons”). We review the issue de novo and affirm. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla.2000) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2000356033&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 .
Cape Publications leased commercial office space in a building owned by the Brandons. The Brandons insured the building with a property and casualty insurance policy, covering fire damage, purchased from Lloyds. As expressly provided in the lease, a portion of Cape Publications' monthly rent was allocated to paying its pro rata share of the premiums on the Brandons' property and casualty insurance. The lease also required Cape Publications to obtain a general liability insurance policy, naming the Brandons as co-insureds, “in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for personal injury[,] bodily injury and property damage....” Cape Publications further agreed to indemnify and hold the Brandons harmless for any claim of damage or injury arising out of its negligence or use of the premises.
The Brandons subsequently submitted a claim to Lloyds after part of the premises leased by Cape Publications was damaged by fire.FN1 http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#B00112025510397 Lloyds paid the Brandons' claim and, pursuant to the lease's indemnity and hold harmless provision, demanded Cape Publications indemnify it for the loss. When Cape Publications refused, Lloyds filed suit, asserting claims for breach of contract, contractual indemnity, and common law indemnity. Cape Publications moved for summary judgment arguing that its pro rata payment of the premiums, along with other lease provisions, made it a co-insured under the Brandons' property and casualty policy and, therefore, Lloyds could not maintain a subrogation action against its own insured. The trial court agreed and granted summary final judgment in favor of Cape Publications, citing Continental Insurance Co. v. Kennerson, 661 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1995191553&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 .
FN1. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#F00112025510397 The fire was apparently the result of improper electrical cords used for vending machines that were owned and operated by a third party, but installed at Cape Publications' direction.
Lloyds argues the summary final judgment was improvidently granted because the lease reflects the parties' intent to shift the risk of loss for fire damage to Cape Publications. Thus, Cape Publications cannot be considered a co-insured or intended beneficiary under the Brandons' property and casualty insurance policy. Lloyds points to two lease provisions in support: the provision requiring Cape Publications to purchase a general liability policy naming the Brandons co-insureds, and the indemnity and hold harmless provision.
The issue raised in this appeal has been addressed in numerous decisions across the country, in the context of both residential and commercial leases. In deciding the issue, courts have adopted one of three analytical approaches: the Sutton, http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1975125473&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 FN2 http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#B00222025510397 anti- Sutton, or case-by-case approach. Whether one approach is adopted over another is motivated by the public policy considerations underlying each. Before determining which approach this court will adopt, a brief overview is necessary.
FN2. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#F00222025510397 Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Okla.Ct.App.1975) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1975125473&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=661&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 .
*2 Generally recognized as representing the majority position or “modern” trend FN3 http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#B00332025510397 is Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Okla .Ct.App.1975) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1975125473&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=661&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 . In Sutton, 532 P.2d at 479, http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1975125473&referenceposition=479&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=661&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&tc=-1&ordoc=2025510397 the residential landlord's insurer filed a subrogation action to recover the monies paid to the landlord for damage caused by an accidental fire started by the tenant's son. The court held that the landlord's insurer could not maintain a subrogation action against the negligent tenant because the “law considers the tenant as a co-insured of the landlord absent an express agreement between them to the contrary.” Id. at 482. http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1975125473&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397
FN3. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#F00332025510397 See Tri–Par Invs., L.L.C. v. Sousa, 680 N.W.2d 190, 195 (Neb.2004) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2004549130&referenceposition=195&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=595&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&tc=-1&ordoc=2025510397 ; Dattel Family Ltd. P'ship, 250 S.W.3d 883, 888 (Tenn . Ct.App.2007) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2013593550&referenceposition=888&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=4644&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&tc=-1&ordoc=2025510397 ; Tate v. Trialco Scrap, Inc., 745 F.Supp. 458, 467 (M.D.Tenn.1989) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1990122442&referenceposition=467&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=345&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&tc=-1&ordoc=2025510397 .
This conclusion was based on several legal and practical considerations and assumptions. First, thecourt recognized the “relational reality” that both the landlord and tenant had insurable interests: one with a fee interest and the other a possessory interest. Id. Second, the court assumed that the landlord passed the cost of the insurance premium onto the tenant as part of the rent payment. Id. Third, thecourt stated that a reality of residential renting was “[p]rospective tenants ordinarily rely” on the owner to procure fire insurance and, absent an agreement otherwise, “it would not likely occur to a reasonably prudent tenant that the premises were without fire insurance protection or if there was such protection it did not inure to his benefit....” Id.
Although a number of courts have adopted Sutton in toto,FN4 http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#B00442025510397 others have adopted its holding but advanced alternative rationales. In Tri–Par Investments, LLC v. Sousa, 680 N.W.2d 190, 199 (Neb.2004) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2004549130&referenceposition=199&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=595&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&tc=-1&ordoc=2025510397 , the court reasoned that a “pure Sutton approach” provided legal certainty by preventing “landlords from engaging in gamesmanship when drafting leases by providing the necessary incentive for them, if they so desire, to place express subrogation provisions in their leases.” Absent such a provision, the court reasoned that insurers would pass the increased risk to the landlords in the form of higher premiums, and the landlords would increase the rent to reflect the higher premiums. The courtstated: “This is almost certainly the current commercial reality.” Id.
FN4. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#F00442025510397 See Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Crete, 846 A.2d 521 (N.H.2004) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2004220151&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=162&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 ; Peterson v. Silva,704 N.E.2d 1163 (Mass.1999) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1999038196&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=578&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 ; Safeco Ins. Co. v. Capri, 705 P.2d 659 (Nev.1985) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1985143760&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=661&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 ; Lexington Ins. Co. v. Raboin, 712 A.2d 1011 (Del.Super.Ct.1998) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1998117181&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=162&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 .
In DiLullo v. Joseph, 792 A.2d 819, 822 (Conn.2002) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2002200921&referenceposition=822&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=162&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&tc=-1&ordoc=2025510397 , the court concluded that Sutton represented better policy based on the “strong public policy” against economic waste. The court stated that to hold otherwise
would create a strong incentive for every tenant to carry liability insurance in an amount necessary to compensate for the value, or perhaps even the replacement cost, of the entire building, irrespective of the portion of the building occupied by the tenant. That is precisely the same value or replacement cost insured by the landlord under his fire insurance policy. Thus, although the two forms of insurance would be different, the economic interest insured would be the same. This duplication of insurance would, in our view, constitute economic waste and, in a multiunit building, the waste would be compounded by the number of tenants.
*3 Id. at 822–23.
In addition to recognizing the rationales in Sousa and DiLullo, the court in Dattel Family Limited Partnership v. Wintz, 250 S.W.3d 883 (Tenn.Ct.App.2007) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2013593550&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=4644&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 , added that the Sutton approach comported with the reasonable expectations of the parties. Specifically, the court reasoned that a residential tenant who merely has a possessory interest would expect the landlord to obtain insurance on the entire building. Conversely, a reasonable landlord would not expect each individual tenant to purchase insurance covering the landlord's building. Accordingly, “all parties involved would reasonably expect a residential tenant to be considered a co-insured under the landlord's insurance policy unless the parties had expressly agreed otherwise.” Id. at 892. http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2013593550&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397
Reaching the opposite conclusion are the anti- Sutton courts. These courts hold that the landlord's insurer may maintain a subrogation action against a negligent tenant who causes fire damage, unless the parties expressly or impliedly agree to the contrary. See Page v. Scott, 567 S.W.2d 101 (Ark.1978) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1978134316&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=713&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 ;Neubauer v. Hostetter, 485 N.W.2d 87 (Iowa 1992) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1992089753&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=595&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 ; Britton v. Wooten, 817 S.W.2d 443 (Ky.1991) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1991176496&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=713&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 ; Fire Ins. Exchange v. Geekie, 534 N.E.2d 1061 (Ill.App.Ct.1989) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1989023988&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=578&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 ; Zoppi v. Traurig, 598 A.2d 19 (N.J.Super. Ct. Law Div.1990) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1991189390&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=162&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 . These cases reject the assumptions and rationale underlying Sutton and adhere to the maxim that a party cannot escape liability for his negligence unless expressly disclaimed in the contract.
The case-by-case approach eschews presumptions that a tenant is or is not a co-insured of the landlord. Instead, the court examines the lease as a whole to determine the parties' reasonable expectations as to who should bear the risk of loss when a tenant negligently damages the leased premises. See Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Auto–Owners Ins. Co., 757 N.W.2d 584 (S.D.2008) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2017416193&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=595&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 ; Rausch v.. Allstate Ins. Co., 882 A.2d 801 (Md.2005) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2007256075&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=162&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 ; Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Joerg, 824 A.2d 586 (Vt.2003) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2003243731&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=162&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 . This approach not only adheres to basic contract analysis, but avoids “making assumptions and adopting fictions that are largely conjectural, if not patently illogical....” Rausch, 882 A.2d at 814 http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2007256075&referenceposition=814&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=162&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&tc=-1&ordoc=2025510397 . As its name suggests, the determination is made on a case-by-case basis and “subrogation may be denied ... if the lease expressly requires the landlord to maintain fire insurance or the lease exonerates a tenant from losses caused by a fire.” Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 757 N.W.2d at 594 http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2017416193&referenceposition=594&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=595&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&tc=-1&ordoc=2025510397 .
Although each approach is supported by persuasive policy rationales, this court concludes that the parties are in the best position to allocate the risk of loss for fire damage FN5 http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#B00552025510397 and, therefore, adopt the case-by-case approach.FN6 http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#B00662025510397 Applying this approach to the commercial lease in this case, we agree with Lloyds that the general provisions requiring Cape Publications to obtain general liability insurance and indemnify and hold the Brandons harmless for its negligence are relevant to determining which party bears the risk of loss. These provisions, however, are not dispositive.
FN5. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#F00552025510397 Given the commercial nature of the lease in this case, we presume that the parties had equal bargaining power.
FN6. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#F00662025510397 The courts in Continental Insurance Co. v. Kennerson, 661 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1995191553&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 , and State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Loo, 27 So.3d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2021324316&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=3926&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 , have previously addressed this issue. However, at least between these parties, there appears to be some confusion surrounding which approach they adopted. Our analysis of these cases leads us to conclude that Kennerson adopted the case-by-case approach, notwithstanding its citation to Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Okla.Ct.App.1975) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1975125473&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=661&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 . It appears, however, that Looadopted the anti- Sutton approach, notwithstanding its statement that it adopted and applied the case-by-case approach. We need not address, nor resolve, whether such a conflict exists.
*4 The lease expressly provides that the Brandons would purchase a property and casualty insurance policy, which undisputedly covered fire damage on the commercial building. The parties further agreed that Cape Publications' rent included its pro rata share of the premium. These specific provisions not only control over the general provisions Lloyds cites, but plainly indicate that the parties intended the risk of loss be born by the Brandons' insurer: Lloyds. See Colonial Bank, N.A. v. Taylor Morrison Servs., Inc., 10 So.3d 653, 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2018531236&referenceposition=655&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=3926&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&tc=-1&ordoc=2025510397 (when two contract provisions address the same subject, the specific controls over the general). This same conclusion was reached in Kennerson, 661 So.2d at 330, http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1995191553&referenceposition=330&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&tc=-1&ordoc=2025510397 when the court held an insurer could not maintain a subrogation action against a commercial tenant where the landlord “assumed responsibility for procuring fire insurance, the cost of which the tenant has agreed to bear and has in fact borne.” See also Rausch, 882 A.2d at 816 http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2007256075&referenceposition=816&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=162&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&tc=-1&ordoc=2025510397 (when the landlord expressly or impliedly agrees to maintain fire insurance on the property, “absent some compelling provision to the contrary,” a court can conclude the parties reasonably expected the landlord would only look to the policy, not the tenant, for a fire loss covered by the policy, notwithstanding a general provision requiring the tenant to surrender the premises in good condition or one imposing liability for the tenant's negligence).
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the parties intended Cape Publications to be an intended beneficiary or co-insured under the Brandons' property and casualty insurance policy.FN7 http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#B00772025510397 Accordingly, Lloyds may not maintain its subrogation action against Cape Publications and the trial court properly entered summary final judgment in its favor.
FN7. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#F00772025510397 We note that the same conclusion would result under the anti- Sutton approach because the parties' agreement to shift the risk of loss to an insurer may be implied “when the terms of the lease require the landlord to carry insurance at the expense of the tenant....” Page v. Scott, 567 S.W.2d 101, 103 (Ark.1978) http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1978134316&referenceposition=103&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=713&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&tc=-1&ordoc=2025510397 .
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=0152146101&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=PROFILER-WLD&tf=-1&findtype=h&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 , J., and LAMBERT http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=0279934901&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=PROFILER-WLD&tf=-1&findtype=h&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 , B., Associate Judge, concur.
Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2011.
Underwriters of Lloyds of London v. Cape Publications, Inc.
--- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 2415845 (Fla.App. 5 Dist.)
Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top) http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?method=TNC&db=FL-CS-ALL&mt=Westlaw&ss=CNT&scxt=WL&rp=%2fsearch%2fdefault.wl&cxt=DC&fmqv=c&cfid=1&service=Search&rltdb=CLID_DB8780915519196&rlti=1&cnt=DOC&query=COURT+%26+da(aft+06%2f11%2f2011)&vr=2.0&eq=search&fn=_top&origin=Search&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT9410824519196&sv=Split&n=10&sskey=CLID_SSSA265523519196&rs=WLW11.04#IN;B1
• 5D10-3384 http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?docname=LINK-GUID(I0A9D3306D28211DFB5FDFCF739BE147C)&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=177756&findtype=%23&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=BC56EFFE&ordoc=2025510397 (Docket) (Oct. 7, 2010)
END OF DOCUMENT
Richman Greer P.A.
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office:561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct:561.803.3501
Email:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org. If you are not landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
Can someone recommend a good Landlord/Tenant lawyer to cover a residential eviction trial for me in Bay County (the Panama City area) on July 15, 2011?
Many thanks,
Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq.
J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A.
Presidential Circle Building
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: 954-962-3500
Fax: 954-962-3560
Email: Jmazor@Mazor.com
Sorry, Jeff…I only know lousy Landlord/Tenant lawyers there…. J
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Mazor
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 1:40 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Need coverage in Bay County, (Panama City)
Can someone recommend a good Landlord/Tenant lawyer to cover a residential eviction trial for me in Bay County (the Panama City area) on July 15, 2011?
Many thanks,
Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq.
J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A.
Presidential Circle Building
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: 954-962-3500
Fax: 954-962-3560
Email: Jmazor@Mazor.com
This LL must have had a burning desire to get rid of his T - just goes to show how heated some of these LL/T disputes can get.
Landlord sets man on fire over late rent
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/crime/fl-boynton-fire-pants-20110628,0,204755.story
Greg Hass, Senior Counsel
Office of Law & Policy | FloridaRealtors(r)
7025 Augusta National Drive, Orlando, FL 32822
talk: 407.438.1400, ext. 2421
visit: http://www.floridarealtors.org
Be a Star at Florida Realtors Convention & Trade Expo
http://convention.floridarealtors.org August 24-28
Not a bright idea
This only happened because the obese tenant had been using "lighter" fluid.
What a guy! This tenant had no match!
It is sad; the tenant was a ray of sunshine.
This does not give me a warm feeling all over - thank G-d.
Tenant causes a burning feeling in the pit of your stomach? Well, maybe
turnabout is fair play.
This tenant was a bore - but this gave him a chance to shine.
The tenant was no match for the landlord.
I heard that the tenant had just asked for a light - be careful what you ask
for.
The landlord only inflamed the situation.
Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq.
J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A.
Presidential Circle Building
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: 954-962-3500
Fax: 954-962-3560
Email: Jmazor@Mazor.com
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Greg Hass
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 5:41 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Landlord sets man on fire over late rent
This LL must have had a burning desire to get rid of his T - just goes to
show how heated some of these LL/T disputes can get.
Landlord sets man on fire over late rent
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/crime/fl-boynton-fire-pants-201106
28,0,204755.story
Greg Hass, Senior Counsel
Office of Law & Policy | FloridaRealtorsR
7025 Augusta National Drive, Orlando, FL 32822
talk: 407.438.1400, ext. 2421
visit: http://www.floridarealtors.org
Be a Star at Florida Realtors Convention & Trade Expo
http://convention.floridarealtors.org August 24-28
In continuing Jeff's comments:
The Landlord and Tenant had a fiery relationship.
This story shows the down-side of "self-help"
It's quicker than the courts!
Les H. Stevens, Esquire
Les H. Stevens, P.A.
5301 North Federal Highway
Suite 130
Boca Raton, Florida 33487
Tel. - (561) 989-9797
Fax - (561) 989-8484
E-Mail - lesstevens@earthlink.net
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO
WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,
CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED
THIS TRANSMITTAL IN ERROR, PLEASE DELETE IT AND NOTIFY THIS OFFICE
IMMEDIATELY
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Mazor
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 6:13 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Landlord sets man on fire over late rent
Not a bright idea
This only happened because the obese tenant had been using "lighter" fluid.
What a guy! This tenant had no match!
It is sad; the tenant was a ray of sunshine.
This does not give me a warm feeling all over - thank G-d.
Tenant causes a burning feeling in the pit of your stomach? Well, maybe
turnabout is fair play.
This tenant was a bore - but this gave him a chance to shine.
The tenant was no match for the landlord.
I heard that the tenant had just asked for a light - be careful what you ask
for.
The landlord only inflamed the situation.
Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq.
J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A.
Presidential Circle Building
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: 954-962-3500
Fax: 954-962-3560
Email: Jmazor@Mazor.com
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Greg Hass
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 5:41 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Landlord sets man on fire over late rent
This LL must have had a burning desire to get rid of his T - just goes to
show how heated some of these LL/T disputes can get.
Landlord sets man on fire over late rent
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/crime/fl-boynton-fire-pants-201106
28,0,204755.story
Greg Hass, Senior Counsel
Office of Law & Policy | FloridaRealtorsR
7025 Augusta National Drive, Orlando, FL 32822
talk: 407.438.1400, ext. 2421
visit: http://www.floridarealtors.org
Be a Star at Florida Realtors Convention & Trade Expo
http://convention.floridarealtors.org August 24-28
There has been some discussion amongst some screening companies regarding
the law that now requires the disclosure of the credit score to an applicant
who is turned down or an "adverse action " is taken against beginning July
11, 2011. An attorney in a very large screening company feels that the
landlord/tenant relationship is not a "credit" transaction therefore we do
not have to provide the score.
Any input?
Thanks,
Harry Heist
This is from the California Apt Association.
The federal Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of
2010 requires users of consumer reports, beginning on July 21, 2011, to also
provide credit scores to applicants if the score was used in taking adverse
action.
Currently the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that an adverse action
notice only include notice of the applicant's right to receive a free copy
of his or her consumer report. The Dodd-Frank Act amended that to stipulate
the credit score itself must be included.
On March 1, 2011, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
issued proposed regulations which contain sample notices to comply with this
requirement. Once these regulations are finalized, and well in advance of
the July 21 deadline, the California Apartment Association (CAA) will
provide updated forms (Notice of Denial, Notice of Conditional Acceptance)
and detailed instructions to help CAA members comply with the new
requirements.
Adverse action notices are provided to rental applicants who, after the
tenant screening process, are denied or conditionally accepted (i.e.,
subject to a cosigner or higher deposit) based on information in a consumer
report. Currently the notice must include:
The name, address, and telephone number of the agency that supplied the
consumer report, including a toll-free number if the agency maintains files
nationwide.
.A statement that the agency that provided the report did not make the
decision to take the adverse action and cannot give the specific reasons for
it.
A notice of the individual's right to dispute the accuracy or completeness
of any information furnished by the agency and of the individual's right to
request a free copy of their credit report from the reporting agency within
60 days of the notice of adverse action.
Section 1100F of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act (Dodd-Frank Act) amends FCRA to require that its adverse action and risk
based pricing notices include:
-
A numerical credit score used in making the credit decision;
-
The range of possible scores under the model used;
LAW OFFICES OF
HEIST, WEISSE, DAVIS & WOLK P.A.
PH: 1 800 253 8428
FAX: 1 800 367 9038
"Serving the Property Management Professional"
Website: www.evict.com http://www.evict.com/
Email: harry@evict.com
THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND
INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY. ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR
DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Hello:
Thank you for accepting me into the Group. If you have any complaints about
me you can blame Harry Heist. (LOL). Seriously I would like to introduce
myself. I am a consumer attorney and tenants are consumers of rental
housing. Many of the consumer statutes are enforceable against landlord and
tenants. I am a member of National Association of Consumer Advocates
(NACA.net). I may be able to address the application of consumer law to the
Landlord/Tenant statute. I will probably have a different outlook to some
of opinions on the list but it is probably better to get a broader aspect of
the law so that you will be better informed before giving advice to your
clients. I hope that I will be a great asset to this group and be able to
add to your discussions.
I am knowledgeable in subsidized housing issues and the integration of
consumer law and landlord tenant law. I am of the opinion that many
landlords are failing to comply with the requirements of the law and are
getting away with it so expect that type of response from me.
At the very least I will give you something to think about.
Thanks.
Leonard Cabral