Vermont, through the Joerg case, has adopted a slightly more open
position followed by a majority of jurisdictions. This approach analyzes a
tenant’s coinsured status on a lease-by-lease basis. Under this method, a
court looks to the intent of the parties and their reasonable expectations as
ascertained from the lease. Joerg, at ¶ 8. The Vermont Supreme Court has
noted that jurisdictions applying this analysis tend to deny subrogation
claims against tenants when they are based on a specific provision either
obligating the landlords to obtain fire insurance or excepting fire damage
from tenant responsibility. Id. (“[M]ost [courts] that have denied
subrogation have done so because of the existence of specific provisions in
the lease, such as a provision obligating the landlord to purchase fire
insurance . . . or a clause excepting fire damage from the tenant's
responsibility . . . .”). The converse is that without such a provision, the
question of insurance coverage, while open to the language of the lease, is
less likely to prohibit subrogation.