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

1,477 chars

¶ 26. In sum, the lease contains: (1) a provision making tenants part owners of the development and, thus, part owners of the development’s insurance policy; and (2) a provision containing at least an “implied agreement to maintain fire insurance on the leased premises,” accompanied by an obligation on behalf of tenants to protect against an increase in the premiums of that insurance. Rausch, 882 A.2d at 816. To conclude that this lease does not implicate the holding of Joerg, we must first either repudiate or minimize the policy considerations contained in that case. We must then ignore what the lease plainly states about tenants’ ownership interests, as well as what it encourages tenants to conclude about the development’s insurance policy. We must do both of these things despite the relevance of public policy concerns to this question of equity, and despite our longstanding rule that contracts of adhesion are interpreted against their drafters. Although it may seem counterintuitive to relieve tenants from their admitted personal responsibility for the damage they caused, “‘[w]e should enforce the contract that was 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)). I would deny insurer’s subrogation claim. I am authorized to state that Justice Skoglund joins in this dissent. The full provision reads as follows:

Other Sections in This Document (37)

Full Text