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

1,035 chars

¶ 20. Thus, it is almost beside the point that a reasonable tenant would certainly have expected from the lease’s reference to the development’s insurance policy that such a policy would exist, and that landlord would pay the premiums. See Houle v. Quenneville, 173 Vt. 80, 86, 787 A.2d 1258, 1262 (2001) (“In construing contracts, we must conclude that the parties included provisions for a reason.”). Nevertheless, this clause alone appears sufficient to deny a subrogation claim against tenants. As the majority points out, “an express requirement in a lease that a landlord procure insurance is not necessary” to deny a subrogation claim. Ante, ¶ 5. In fact, the mere mention of the development’s insurance policy implicates the policy considerations of Joerg’s rule to nearly the same extent as if the lease had expressly stated that landlord must carry insurance.3 Joerg presents three public policy *224reasons for adopting the rule that a landlord’s obligation to carry-insurance is “determinative on the issue of subrogation”:

Other Sections in This Document (37)

Full Text