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

2,455 chars

In DiLullo v. Joseph, supra, 259 Conn. at 850, 792 A.2d 819, our Supreme Court addressed the question of an insurer's right to bring a subrogation action against its insured's tenant who held over under an oral lease. "The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether, in the absence of a specific agreement covering the question, a fire insurer of leased premises has a right of subrogation against a tenant for negligently causing a fire." (Emphasis added.) Id., at 848, 792 A.2d 819. In affirming the trial court's granting of the tenant's motion for summary judgment, the court reasoned, "in large part, upon the principle that subrogation, as an equitable doctrine, invokes matters of policy and fairness.... One such policy implicated by the issue presently before us is that disfavoring economic waste. See Gangemi v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 255 Conn. 143, 154, 763 A.2d 1011 (2001) (policy against economic waste long recognized in our jurisdiction). This strong public policy convinces us that it would be inappropriate to create a default rule that allocates to the tenant the responsibility of maintaining sufficient insurance to cover a claim for subrogation by his landlord's insurer. Such a rule would create a strong incentive for every tenant to carry liability insurance in an amount necessary to compensate for the value, or perhaps even the replacement cost, of the entire building, irrespective of the portion of the building occupied by the tenant. This is precisely the same value or replacement cost insured by the landlord under his fire insurance policy. Thus, although the two forms of insurance would be different, the economic interest insured would be the same. This duplication of insurance would, in our view, constitute economic waste and, in a multiunit building, the waste would be compounded by the number of tenants. See Peterson v. Silva, [428 Mass. 751, 754, 704 N.E.2d 1163 (1999)] (`[i]t surely is not in the public interest to require all the tenants to insure the building which they share, thus causing the building to be fully insured by each tenancy'). We think that our law would be better served by having the default rule of law embody this policy against economic waste, and by leaving it to the specific agreement of the parties if they wish a different rule to apply to their, or their *1038 insurers', relationship." (Citation omitted; emphasis added.) DiLullo v. Joseph, supra, at 853-54, 792 A.2d 819.

Other Sections in This Document (108)

Full Text