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

1,390 chars

Very simply, as the majority acknowledges, the lease does not contain the word subrogation or any express language that the plaintiff had the right to proceed against the Vaszils for damage negligently caused to the landlord’s property. That acknowledgment alone is sufficient to affirm the judgment of the trial court. The majority, however, has scrutinized the contract to infer an agreement between the landlord and the Vaszils regarding subrogation. DiLullo does not permit the *500inference of such an agreement. At best, the lease is ambiguous as to a tenant’s responsibility for damage negligently caused. The lease uses the words apartment, building, damage and destruction. It enumerates certain rules, including one that the tenant is not to do anything that would increase the cost of insurance. See footnote 3 (“12. RULES AND REGULATIONS.”). In case of a tenant’s default, the landlord reserved the right to keep the security deposit to pay for rent or other money owed under the lease. See footnote 3 (“16. SECURITY DEPOSIT.”). One equally could infer from the provisions of the lease that a tenant’s liability is limited to the amount of his or her security deposit. Such a reasonable inference is far from an express agreement between the landlord and tenant that the insurer has a right to subrogation for losses paid to its insured. Ill RULES PERTAINING TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Other Sections in This Document (108)

Full Text