Landlord sue for not adding him in the insurance policy

[quincy]

My head is spinning - this thread has gone on 2 pages longer than it really needed to.

Yes. The thread probably could have ended when lestasri said he had an attorney.

Sometimes these threads take on a life of their own though.

 

[lestasri]

You aren’t disagreeing with me, Zigner. The comment referred to was made by forum member “ALawyer,” not me.

I don’t really know if there is merit to ALawyer’s comment, lestasri, but it could be mentioned to your attorney to see what he thinks.

You are right, my mistake, it is not Quincy. My apologies please

 

[quincy]

You are right, my mistake, it is not Quincy. My apologies please

Not a problem.

 

[Litigator22]

If the landlord required that it be covered as an additional insured under the tenant's comprehensive insurance policy, and the tenant failed to do so, and the landlord suffered injury as a result, the tenant would be liable. Of course if the landlord failed to request a copy of the policy endorsement that the lease likely says has to be provided, tenant could argue the landlord waived the required insurance provision .

Also, the insurance provision is designed to protect the landlord from damage caused by or contributed to by the tenant, such as a fire that starts in a tenant's kitchen. If the tenant was not responsible for the fire or any increased damage to the landlord's property, there would be no basis for complaint. If the tenant did start the fire, then it's likely the landlord can legitimately attach the insurance proceeds the tenant would otherwise have received from his/her carrier.

Pardon me for asking, but:

Do you seriously believe that the landlord's right to seek legal redress for losses resulting from his tenant's failure to include him as an additional insured hinges on whether or not he asked to see a copy of the tenant's insurance policy? (Sounds like a "Simon Says" game. . . . but your Honor, the plaintiff never asked to see the policy to which I agreed his name should be included. )

Also, would it not be seemingly absurd that a lease should require the tenant to obtain comprehensive insurance, but limited "to protecting the landlord from damage caused by or contributed to by the tenant"? (Your words not mine.)

(Do you know of any such policies? How do you define the term "comprehensive insurance? How do you define your word "contributed" in your phrase "caused by or contributed to by the tenant"?)

Lastly, please explaining how one can validate your statement that the landlord has a viable cause of action against his tenant for breach of the agreement that he be included as a named insured ONLY "if the tenant started the fire"? Otherwise "there is no basis for complaint". (?)

 

[quincy]

In fairness to ALawyer, he said, “... the tenant could argue the landlord waived the required insurance provision.” (bolding added) ALawyer DIDN’T say the argument would be a successful one.

I am actually surprised that lestasri’s insurance policy didn’t require that the landlord be included as an “additional insured.” That would be a pretty standard condition in a commercial policy.

 

[lestasri]

In fairness to ALawyer, he said, “... the tenant could argue the landlord waived the required insurance provision.” (bolding added) ALawyer DIDN’T say the argument would be a successful one.

I am actually surprised that lestasri’s insurance policy didn’t require that the landlord be included as an “additional insured.” That would be a pretty standard condition in a commercial policy.

If you were in the tenant's position where you asked the insurance company to cover his business without realizing that he made a mistake on this one, turned around the landlord wants the tenant reimbursement for the equipment. The landlord has been reimbursed for the building damage, and the tenant has been reimbursed for the equipment.

My understanding that property is divided into two distinct classes: real property and personal property. Real property consists of the land and building, whereas personal property is removable and includes the furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) the tenant uses to operate its business. FF&E is usually defined as a “trade fixture,” which means the tenant may remove it at the end of the lease. Examples of common restaurant trade fixtures include coffee makers, soda machines, tables and chairs, and certain kitchen equipment.

Certain fixtures that are affixed to walls that cannot be removed without causing damage or injury to the premises or building are not considered trade fixtures and therefore remain with the premises at the end term. These fixtures are considered leasehold improvements that remain landlord’s property.

There might be a case like this in the future, so this forum discussion is good for a learning experience. I appreciate all your thoughts and comments.

 

[quincy]

If you were in the tenant's position where you asked the insurance company to cover his business without realizing that he made a mistake on this one, turned around the landlord wants the tenant reimbursement for the equipment. The landlord has been reimbursed for the building damage, and the tenant has been reimbursed for the equipment.

My understanding that property is divided into two distinct classes: real property and personal property. Real property consists of the land and building, whereas personal property is removable and includes the furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) the tenant uses to operate its business. FF&E is usually defined as a “trade fixture,” which means the tenant may remove it at the end of the lease. Examples of common restaurant trade fixtures include coffee makers, soda machines, tables and chairs, and certain kitchen equipment.

Certain fixtures that are affixed to walls that cannot be removed without causing damage or injury to the premises or building are not considered trade fixtures and therefore remain with the premises at the end term. These fixtures are considered leasehold improvements that remain landlord’s property.

There might be a case like this in the future, so this forum discussion is good for a learning experience. I appreciate all your thoughts and comments.

I think you need to rely on your attorney. Your insurance company, too, is working for you.

 

[lestasri]

Thanks Quincy for your advice. I do rely on my attorney, but I want to learn something here. I find the responses are very interesting. I wish I could go to a law school, I wanted to be a lawyer, but I am not that smart...

 

[quincy]

Thanks Quincy for your advice. I do rely on my attorney, but I want to learn something here. I find the responses are very interesting. I wish I could go to a law school, I wanted to be a lawyer, but I am not that smart...

The LSAT (the standardized test for law school admission) is primarily a test of logic. Law school, especially the first year, is sort of like learning a new language - and not Spanish or French but at times more like Mandarin or Arabic.

It is the language of law that tends to be most confusing. It is not very consumer-friendly.

 

[lestasri]

The tenant gave the landlord and his lawyer the list of equipment that has been reimbursed by the tenant insurance. It seems they cannot find any items on the list that belong to the landlord. No news for 4 weeks, and suddenly the landlord called the tenant asking the tenant to pay his lawyer fee and also the rent for the store, even the building has not been fixed. The tenant refuses to pay the lawyer fee and the rent as the landlord has not used the money from his insurance to fix the building so the tenant has not been able to open the business. Tenant wonders how long he can wait for the landlord to fix the building.

 

[quincy]

The tenant gave the landlord and his lawyer the list of equipment that has been reimbursed by the tenant insurance. It seems they cannot find any items on the list that belong to the landlord. No news for 4 weeks, and suddenly the landlord called the tenant asking the tenant to pay his lawyer fee and also the rent for the store, even the building has not been fixed. The tenant refuses to pay the lawyer fee and the rent as the landlord has not used the money from his insurance to fix the building so the tenant has not been able to open the business. Tenant wonders how long he can wait for the landlord to fix the building.

The tenant will not find the answer to that question on a legal forum. Sorry.

The tenant should ask his own attorney to assist in encouraging the landlord to fix the property. The tenant is right to refuse to pay rent or the landlord’s attorney at this point.

Good luck.