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

2,036 chars

When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court determines whether there are genuine issues of material fact and does not sit as the trier of fact to decide the genuine issues of material fact. In deciding the appeal, the majority reframed one of the issues raised by the plaintiff,4 thereby creating a question of *501fact, i.e., “whether the language of the defendants’ lease with the landlord was sufficient to permit the landlord’s insurance company to subrogate against the defendants when the lease contained no express provision that the insurance company would have that right.” On appeal, the plaintiff framed its first issue, concerning the construction of the contract, in the language of the trial court that ruled on the motion for summary judgment. The trial court’s language is faithful to the language of the rule in DiLullo, i.e., “express agreement.” Furthermore, footnote 3 of the majority opinion highlights the ambiguity within the lease. The unresolved factual question noted in footnote 3 concerns the extent to which the lease permits the landlord to pursue a tenant for damage to property, that is, whether the landlord’s right is limited to damage to the apartment or extends to the destruction of the building housing numerous apartments. Damage and destruction are not defined by the lease. The default provision of the lease indicates that the landlord will look to the $1500 security deposit if the tenant violates provisions of the lease. See footnote 3 (“16. SECURITY DEPOSIT.”). Given the question concerning the extent of a tenant’s responsibility for damage or destruction, the lease not only fails to let a tenant know that the insurance carrier has the right to subrogate for any loss benefits paid, but it also does not put a tenant on notice that he or she should obtain insurance in the event of a catastrophic loss. This is particularly true where the lease implies that the landlord has protected itself by having procured its own insurance. See footnote 3 (“12. RULES AND REGULATIONS.”).

Other Sections in This Document (108)

Full Text