Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Citation
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Parent Document
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2006-07-11
Other Sections in This Document (26)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
Full Text
1,171 charsThe lease in the present case does not remotely inform the defendants that they would be liable to their landlord’s insurer for any casualty fire damages to the landlord’s building. It informs them neither of the need to insure only their apartment,4 **4 nor of the need to obtain insurance in an amount sufficient to cover the value of the entire multiunit apartment building. Rather, the only mention of insurance in the lease is the provision prohibiting them as tenants from bringing anything into their apartment that would cause the landlord’s insur*38anee rates to increase.5 This provision, however, implies that the landlord has procured casualty and property insurance and, by operation of the principle inclusio unius est exclusio aiterius, suggests that only the landlord is expected to carry insurance. Therefore, the lease in the present case not only fails to put a tenant on notice that the landlord’s insurer has a right of subrogation for any loss benefits paid, it also neglects to put a tenant on notice that he or she should obtain insurance coverage for a catastrophic loss, in other words, a loss extending beyond the tenant’s individual apartment.