Although the lease informs the defendants that they may not damage any part of the apartment and that they will be responsible for rent in the event they damage the apartment; see footnote 2 of this opinion; these terms suggest that, if a tenant causes any such damage, then he or she would be hable to pay only the party to whom rent is owed, namely, the landlord, and would be hable only for rent and nothing else. Furthermore, although the lease gave notice to a tenant of his or her duty to repair damage to the apartment and that, 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, these provisions strongly suggest that a tenant’s liability would be limited to the amount of his or her security deposit. See footnote 2 of this opinion. The final relevant provision, which obhgates the tenant, in the event that he fails to comply with his obligations under the lease, to “pay [the landlord] the amount that [the landlord] pay[s] to do the things that [the tenant] did not do,” when read in conjunction with the sole insurance provision implying that the landlord has procured insurance, suggests that the landlord will *39not have to “pay” anything should a tenant cause damage to the property in derogation of the lease. These provisions and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom are far from an express agreement between the landlord and tenant that the landlord’s insurer has a right to subrogation for losses paid to its insured and, indeed, they compel a contrary conclusion. Accordingly, the plaintiffs reliance on these various disparate provisions or any combination thereof to create an express agreement allowing the right to subrogation by the landlord’s insurer fails. Because the reasoning and effect of the Appellate Court majority decision is inconsistent with DiLullo v. Joseph, supra, 259 Conn. 850-51, which requires an express or specific agreement between a landlord and a tenant regarding an insurer’s right of equitable subrogation, we agree with the dissenting opinion that, “[n]ot only did the majority take on the job of construing an ambiguous contract on a motion for summary judgment, it misapplied the substantive law of equitable subrogation regarding a tenancy.” Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, supra, 89 Conn. App. 502 (Dranginis, J., dissenting).