Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Citation
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Parent Document
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2006-08-18
Other Sections in This Document (37)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Deguise, 180 Vt. 214 (2006)
Full Text
1,698 chars*219¶ 10. Tenants also argue that we should be guided by public policy considerations we discussed in Joerg to conclude that tenants are implied coinsureds, arguing that landlord here would certainly take its insurance costs into account when setting rent. See Joerg, 2003 VT 27, ¶ 10 (concluding that, where landlord is obligated to purchase insurance, landlord would take insurance cost into account in setting rent, and economic inefficiency of multiple insurance policies would thus be prevented). Unlike the lease in Joerg, however, this lease does not place an insurance obligation on landlord. The parties’ agreement spans twenty-one pages with numerous provisions establishing each party’s obligations in great detail. The lease here, in express and unqualified language, obligates tenants to pay for the damage caused by their negligence. In reviewing the lease as a whole, we cannot imply from the provisions that landlord intended to obligate itself to provide insurance for the benefit of tenants or to relieve tenants from liability for negligently damaging the leased premises, and we find nothing in the language of the lease that would reasonably lead tenants to imply a contrary intent. While public policy considerations are helpful in balancing the equities of the parties in light of the agreement they reached, we cannot elevate public policy considerations to override or contradict the terms of the parties’ agreement. It is the role of courts to enforce the contract the parties made, “‘not one we wish they made.’” Joerg, 2003 VT 27, ¶ 9 (quoting Fairchild Square Co. v. Green Mountain Bagel Bakery, Inc., 163 Vt. 433, 444, 658 A.2d 31, 38 (1995) (Dooley, J., dissenting)).