malone 118 main st v hugos restaurant, No. 23-cv-1881 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)

Citation: malone 118 main st v hugos restaurant, No. 23-cv-1881 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
Parent Document: malone 118 main st v hugos restaurant, No. 23-cv-1881 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2026-03-30
Original Source: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/20130 ↗

Full Text

599 chars

the policies and would be required from time-to-time to show proof to the other, but Section 5(d) includes provisions
for insurance premiums to be paid through CAM charges. Given that Defendants were not required to be named as
co-insureds on Plaintiff’s premise policy, it is unclear from the language of the lease how the parties intended to
divvy the costs of the various policies, whether the parties intended Defendants to pay for all three policies, or if the
insurance premium provision in Section 5(d) was merely an example of the type of costs that Plaintiff would pass
along to Defendants.

Other Sections in This Document (36)

Full Text