Landlord sue for not adding him in the insurance policy

[quincy]

Here is a direct quote from lestasri: “The electrical caused the fire. The fire happened when no one was on the premises. It was around 10 PM.”

lestasri has an attorney and I am confident that the attorney will know if the breach in the lease is a valid cause of action.

 

[LdiJ]

Here is a direct quote from lestasri: “The electrical caused the fire. The fire happened when no one was on the premises. It was around 10 PM.”

Yeah, I went back myself and looked, he responded within the quote so I missed it the first time around. At this point I am back to your previous suggestion that the OP might not be responsible. If the equipment was not in use, its unlikely that the wiring in the equipment caused the fire. It's far more likely that the wiring in the building caused the fire.

Restaurants tend to operate mostly on gas rather than electric because electric is normally much more expensive. However, of course there are also going to be a lot of electrical stuff too, because many things used in a commercial kitchen are only going to be powered by electricity. However those things that are powered by electricity are not going to cause a fire if they are not turned on.

I would encourage the OP to encourage his attorney to talk to an electrician and perhaps even hire one as an expert witness because I really cannot see how turned off commercial kitchen equipment could cause an electrical fire. One exception perhaps could be the walk in fridge or freezer, but the odds of an electrical fire in those are also quite small...and the odds of them being powered electrically are not that high either.

 

[quincy]

It is likely that the insurance adjusters and the attorneys are going over everything. They have the facts that we lack so lestasri should rely on his attorney.

The landlord’s breach of contract claim may or may not have merit - but I don’t see the landlord walking away with any additional money based on the breach. At most, the breach could be grounds enough to terminate the lease - and only if fault for the fire can be attributed to lestasri.

 

[Zigner]

Yeah, I went back myself and looked, he responded within the quote so I missed it the first time around. At this point I am back to your previous suggestion that the OP might not be responsible. If the equipment was not in use, its unlikely that the wiring in the equipment caused the fire. It's far more likely that the wiring in the building caused the fire.

Restaurants tend to operate mostly on gas rather than electric because electric is normally much more expensive. However, of course there are also going to be a lot of electrical stuff too, because many things used in a commercial kitchen are only going to be powered by electricity. However those things that are powered by electricity are not going to cause a fire if they are not turned on.

I would encourage the OP to encourage his attorney to talk to an electrician and perhaps even hire one as an expert witness because I really cannot see how turned off commercial kitchen equipment could cause an electrical fire. One exception perhaps could be the walk in fridge or freezer, but the odds of an electrical fire in those are also quite small...and the odds of them being powered electrically are not that high either.

Nobody said that the kitchen equipment caused the fire. The OP clearly stated that it was WIRING. EVERY kitchen, restaurant, etc., that I've ever encountered has had wiring in the walls.

Oh, and did you really mean to say that the odds of a walk in fridge or freezer being powered electrically are not that high?

 

[LdiJ]

Nobody said that the kitchen equipment caused the fire. The OP clearly stated that it was WIRING. EVERY kitchen, restaurant, etc., that I've ever encountered has had wiring in the walls.

Oh, and did you really mean to say that the odds of a walk in fridge or freezer being powered electrically are not that high?

I think you misunderstand me. The walls have wiring, and the items themselves have wiring. I was saying that it was unlikely that the wiring in the items themselves were the cause of the fire. It was far more likely that it was the wiring in the walls, which would make it the landlord's responsibility.

 

[Zigner]

I think you misunderstand me. The walls have wiring, and the items themselves have wiring. I was saying that it was unlikely that the wiring in the items themselves were the cause of the fire. It was far more likely that it was the wiring in the walls, which would make it the landlord's responsibility.

That I agree with

 

[quincy]

I think you misunderstand me. The walls have wiring, and the items themselves have wiring. I was saying that it was unlikely that the wiring in the items themselves were the cause of the fire. It was far more likely that it was the wiring in the walls, which would make it the landlord's responsibility.

There is a report from the fire department so it is a good bet that the source and location of the fire is already known. And the insurance companies have paid their respective policy holders.

The remaining issue appears to be the breach of contract. The breach of the lease is not over the fire but over the fact that lestasri did not include the landlord on his insurance policy.

 

[Zigner]

There is a report from the fire department so it is a good bet that the source and location of the fire is already known. And the insurance companies have paid their respective policy holders.

The remaining issue appears to be the breach of contract. The breach of the lease is not over the fire but over the fact that lestasri did not include the landlord on his insurance policy.

But, the real question goes beyond that and addresses whether said breach caused the LL any financial loss. Th other party appears to think it does (for some reason).

 

[quincy]

But, the real question goes beyond that and addresses whether said breach caused the LL any financial loss. Th other party appears to think it does (for some reason).

The landlord obviously is not happy with lestasri but I imagine it has to do with the discussions the landlord is currently having with the insurers, who are “cross-checking” who gets what.

It is possible that the building’s wiring was found to be the cause of the fire and fault falls on the landlord, making the landlord vulnerable to additional claims against his insurance from both lestasri and the other tenant.

But I am confident that the insurance adjusters and the attorneys can handle everything. lestasri’s attorney is no doubt investigating the validity of the landlord’s breach of contract claim.

 

[lestasri]

The landlord received the money from his insurance, and the tenant received money from his insurance also; however, the landlord claim that the tenant breaches the lease but not adding the landlord in the tenant insurance. The landlord claimed that if he was listed in the insurance he can negotiate with his insurance to cover the entire cost of the project including all the equipment. The tenant claimed that the landlord should focus on his responsibility to fix the damage with this insurance money that he had received which is to fix the bathroom, plumbing, structural component, vents, pipes, and electrical/power panel, wiring, and whatever he claims as to the landlord. It is not the landlord's responsibility or right for the landlord the purchase the equipment for the tenant. The tenant will use the money he received from his insurance to purchase the equipment for his business.

The landlord still sticks with his note that the tenant breaches the lease by not adding him in the tenant insurance. Basically, the landlord became greedy after the tenant’s money and asked his attorney to find the loophole in the lease agreement.

I noticed Quincy’s notes that if the landlord failed to request a copy of the policy endorsement that the lease likely says has to be provided, the tenant could argue the landlord waived the required insurance provision. Please advise if there is any law for this argument?

 

[lestasri]

It is likely that the insurance adjusters and the attorneys are going over everything. They have the facts that we lack so lestasri should rely on his attorney.


The landlord’s breach of contract claim may or may not have merit - but I don’t see the landlord walking away with any additional money based on the breach. At most, the breach could be grounds enough to terminate the lease - and only if fault for the fire can be attributed to lestasri.

The tenant offers the landlord to transfer the fee to fix wall, floor, ceiling and walking cooler from the tenant insurance to the landlord, if the landlord willing to terminate the lease, but the landlord wants more...

 

[Zigner]

I noticed Quincy’s notes that if the landlord failed to request a copy of the policy endorsement that the lease likely says has to be provided, the tenant could argue the landlord waived the required insurance provision. Please advise if there is any law for this argument?

I disagree that a failure to request proof of compliance affects the requirement for compliance.

In other words, I disagree with Quincy ALawyer.

 

[lestasri]

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. Please advise the basis of this argument...

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.

 

[quincy]

... I noticed Quincy’s notes that if the landlord failed to request a copy of the policy endorsement that the lease likely says has to be provided, the tenant could argue the landlord waived the required insurance provision. Please advise if there is any law for this argument?

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.

 

[Zigner]

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.

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