Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 11

Citation
§ 11
Parent Document
Beltway Management Co. v. Lexington-Landmark Insurance, 746 F. Supp. 1145 (1990)
Effective Date
1990-09-19

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text

591 chars
does not, however, help Landmark. The members of the Tenant Council have possession of Beltway’ apartments and, thus, are not precluded by these cases. Furthermore, the requirement that the underlying plaintiff have possession does not conflict with coverage for breaches of the warranty in habitability because the possession requirement in no way implies that the rights protected are limited to possession. Thus, while-there is support for Beltway’s expansive interpretation, Counsel has cited no precedent supporting Landmark’s restrictive interpretation and research has disclosed none.