When faced with the issue of an owner’s insurer bringing a
subrogation claim against a tenant, courts have responded in several ways.
As Joerg, notes a minority of jurisdictions have chosen to adopt a per se,
default rule. These courts have adopted the position that a tenant either is
or is not a coinsured for the purposes of the owner’s fire liability insurance.
Compare Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478, 482 (Okla. Ct. App. 1975)
(tenant is a coinsured under a landlord’s fire insurance as a matter of law),
with Neubauer v. Hostetter, 485 N.W.2d 87, 89–90 (Iowa 1992) (tenant is
not coinsured as a matter of law); but see Seaco v. Barbosa, 761 N.E.2d
946, 949–50 (Mass. 2002) (criticizing the per se approach). In both cases,
parties to a lease may modify this per se arrangement by including express
terms to the contrary in their agreement, but short of such express, and
presumably clear, language a court in these jurisdictions will apply the
default rule, either granting or refusing co-insured status.