Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Commerce Insurance v. Chadwick Medical Associates, 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 291 (2007)

Citation
Commerce Insurance v. Chadwick Medical Associates, 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 291 (2007)
Parent Document
Commerce Insurance v. Chadwick Medical Associates, 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 291 (2007)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
2007-10-11

Full Text

2,294 chars
The Supreme Judicial Court has addressed but not decided whether there are implied warranties in commercial leases. Young v. Garwacki, 380 Mass. 162, 171 (1980); Chausse v. Coz, 405 Mass. 264, 267-68 (1989); Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322, 330 (2006). In Young the tenant was a tenant at will. Young, 380 Mass. at 163. A guest of a residential tenant was injured after sustaining a fall from the balcony that resulted from a broken railing. Id. The Court stated that the landlord should not be liable in negligence unless he knew or should have known of the defect and had a reasonable opportunity to repair it. Id. at 171. In Chausse, a company leased a premises and an *292employee was injured during a chemical explosion. Chausse, 405 Mass. at 265. The plaintiff requested that the Court extend the ruling in Young to commercial leases. Id. at 266. The court declined to rule that an implied warranty of habitability existed in that case. Id. at 267-68. The court did state that in some circumstances they might recognize an implied warranty of habitability in a lease for commercial purposes, but they did not identify what those circumstances were. Id. at 268. In Humphrey, the plaintiff had a written commercial lease with the landlord. Humphrey, 447 Mass. at 324. Again, the plaintiff requested that the court extend the ruling in Young to commercial leases. Id. at 323. The court declined to extend the ruling to commercial leases. It reasoned that the bargaining power of commercial tenants is generally greater than that of residential tenants. Id. at 330. The implied warranty of habitability is ill-suited to many in commercial settings, where lessees can bargain for express warranties. The Court did not foreclose that there may be implied warranties in certain types of commercial leases, but pointed out that there are significant differences in commercial and residential leases.3 In addition to the bargaining power, the court explained that commercial leases give the tenant incentive to k'eep up and repair the premises for the benefit of his/her own business. In addition, commercial leases often span a greater amount of time than residential leases. The Court has yet to find a set of facts that resulted in an implied warranty of habitability in a commercial lease. 4.