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

977 chars

*492I agree with the majority’s statement of the facts that underlie this action, including its observation that the lease does not contain the word subrogation or an express provision that the plaintiff has the right to proceed against the tenants for damage caused to the landlord’s property. I would add, however, that Brian Vaszil was not the only tenant of unit 19-5 in the apartment building. See footnote 3. An important procedural fact is the trial court’s reasoning in rendering summary judgment. Following reargument on the motion for summary judgment, the court concluded “that the provisions of the lease obligating the tenant not to cause damage to the apartment and to be responsible for repairing any such damages do not rise to a level of creating an express agreement noticing and obligating the tenant to be responsible for the fire loss in this case. The court farther finds that no other provision of the lease creates such an obligation.” (Emphasis added.)

Other Sections in This Document (108)

Full Text