Looking elsewhere in the lease, there is a conspicuous lack of any
language that would extend coverage to or exclude responsibility from
tenants. In fact, the lease when taken as a whole explicitly prohibits tenants
from several broad and enumerated categories of behavior (¶ 10(B)
Maintenance; ¶ 11, Damages; ¶ 13 General Restrictions) and holds them
explicitly responsible for any damage resulting (¶ 8, Security Deposit; ¶
11, Damages). Taken together, there is no language either in paragraph 28
or the lease as a whole to suggest that Northgate was obliged to carry fire
insurance for tenants benefit. Nor could tenants have reasonably expected
such a benefit from the language of the lease. There is nothing in the lease
which would have caused tenants to suspect that they were freed of the
responsibility of obtaining their own insurance to cover their property and
their own acts of negligence. As such, the lease and paragraph 28 do not
give tenants the status of coinsured or prevent insurer from bring its present
subrogation claim.