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
1,527 chars¶ 25. Under these circumstances, it is only fair that ambiguities in the lease be resolved against landlord, and thus, against insurer. See Windsor at Seven Oaks v. Kelly, 448 N.E.2d 251, 253 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983) (“[W]here a landlord has drafted the lease, a court will not impose a responsibility upon the tenant unless the circumstances and the contract clearly indicate that the tenant intended to assume such a responsibility.”); see also Garneau v. Curtis & Bedell, Inc., 158 Vt. 363, 367, 610 A.2d 132, 134 (1992) (ambiguity in insurance contract drafted by party in superior bargaining position must be construed against drafter); Viles v. Vermont State Colleges, 168 Vt. 459, 462, 724 A.2d 448, 450-51 (1998) (ambiguity in employee benefit plan drafted by party with superior bargaining power must be construed against drafter). As insurer is “standing in the shoes” of landlord for these purposes, this presumption applies just as strongly against insurer. Joerg, 2003 VT *22727, ¶ 6 (quotations omitted). This is not, as the majority characterizes it, an argument that the terms of the contract should not bind tenants. See ante, ¶ 12 (“[W]e cannot conclude that it is the role of this Court to rewrite the parties’ agreement solely because this landlord rents apartments to persons of low income and presumably limited ability to bargain on lease terms.”). Rather, it is a presumption against the drafter of an ambiguous contract under circumstances where there is no question as to which party drafted the contract.