Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 873 A.2d 1030 (2005)

Citation: Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 873 A.2d 1030 (2005)
Parent Document: Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 873 A.2d 1030 (2005)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2005-06-07
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1903021/middlesex-mutual-assurance-co-v-vaszil/ ↗

Full Text

957 chars

The leading case that asserts that there is no right of subrogation absent a specific agreement is Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478, 482 (Okla. App. 1975) (precluding subrogation because law considers tenant coinsured of landlord, and because landlord and tenant have insurable interest in property). Our Supreme Court has criticized Sutton, concluding that “under traditional rules of insurance law, a tenant is not a coinsured on his landlord’s fire insurance policy simply because he has an insurable interest in the premises and pays rent.” DiLullo v. Joseph, supra, 259 Conn. 853. The court expressly agreed that subrogation generally requires a case-by-case analysis of the insurance policies and leases involved. Id. By disagreeing with the fundamental principles of the Sutton rule, the court preserved the right of subrogation in situations in which an analysis of relevant lease language would yield a determination that subrogation is appropriate.

Other Sections in This Document (108)

Full Text