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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8209938/travelers-indemnity-co-of-ameri... ↗

Full Text

1,158 chars

¶ 11. Finally, tenants claim that the circumstances of this particular housing development make any subrogation claim by an insurer inequitable because no one would expect a low-income tenant to purchase liability insurance. See Norfolk & Dedham Fire Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 132 Vt. 341, 346, 318 A.2d 659, 662 (1974) (“The subrogee must have clear equity and subrogation is defeated by countervailing equities.”). We first note that tenants’ argument that “to hold that [tenants] agreed to waive the benefit of [landlord’s] insurance is inconsistent with the reality of their circumstances” misconstrues the relevant “waiver” inquiry. As we have discussed, the first question is *220whether the parties’ agreement reflects a mutual expectation that landlord’s insurance was procured for landlord’s and tenants’ mutual benefit, or whether the landlord waived its right to recover damages from tenants. See Fairchild Square, 163 Vt. at 436, 658 A.2d at 33 (“Whether landlord waived its right to recover against tenant for negligently caused fire damage depends on the intent of the contracting parties as determined by the terms of the contract.”).

Other Sections in This Document (37)

Full Text