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
1,378 chars¶ 19. It is in light of this bargain that we should examine the “Hazards” paragraph of the lease, upon which tenants rely to prove the reasonableness of their expectation that landlord would look to an insurance policy for recovery of its costs in case of fire. As the majority *223points out, that paragraph does not explicitly require landlord to carry fire insurance. Instead, it requires tenants to help ensure that the development’s insurance premiums do not increase. This is entirely consistent with my interpretation of the first paragraph of the lease. It is the kind of obligation that fits within the residents’ “special responsibility” to the development, and it reinforces the notion that the residents of the development are members of a cooperative community. The clause refers to “the development’s insurance premiums” (emphasis added). This is more accurate than calling them landlord’s premiums, not only because the residents are part owners of the development, but also because, as we stated in Joerg, “the landlord will take the cost of the insurance into account when setting rent.” Joerg, 2003 VT 27, ¶ 10. For both reasons, each resident of Northgate can be presumed to benefit from lower insurance premiums, and tenants’ responsibility to take care to keep premiums low can be seen as an obligation to the community as much as an obligation to landlord.