 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North River Ins. Co. v. Snyder8/27/2002
Reporter of Decisions
Argued: May 7, 2002
Majority: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, DANA, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.
Dissent: RUDMAN and ALEXANDER, JJ.
The United States District Court for the District of Maine (Hornby, C.J.) has certified the following question: "May a residential tenant be liable in subrogation to the insurer of a landlord for damages paid as a result of fire, absent an express agreement to the contrary in a written lease?" We answer the question as follows: No, a residential tenant may not be held liable in subrogation to the insurer of the landlord for damages paid as a result of a fire, absent an agreement to the contrary—that is, absent an express agreement in the written lease that the tenant is liable in subrogation for fire damage to the apartment complex.
I. BACKGROUND
Denzil and Candice Snyder rented an apartment, pursuant to a written lease, at the Cortland Apartment Complex in South Portland in 1998, and independently obtained a "homeowners" insurance policy for coverage of their personal property as well as $300,000 in liability protection. The Snyders received a reduced rent because Candice worked as a leasing agent for the landlord, which involved meeting with new tenants to review the terms of the standard lease agreement. The owner of the apartment, Cortland Associates, was insured for fire and casualty losses by North River Insurance Company. The Snyders are not listed as named insureds in the insurance contract between Cortland and North River Insurance.
In 1999 a fire at the apartment complex caused significant damage. North River Insurance alleges that the Snyders' babysitter was smoking on the Snyders' deck shortly before the fire began, and that the fire department determined that the fire was caused by her careless discarding of a cigarette.
Cortland recovered approximately $230,000 from North River Insurance, and North River filed a subrogation claim against the Snyders in federal court alleging that it suffered damage due to the Snyders' negligence and breach of their lease with Cortland. The Snyders moved for a summary judgment contending that North River's subrogation claim was barred because the Snyders were "co-insureds" under the policy North River provided to Cortland.
The Magistrate Judge (Cohen, M.J.) agreed with the Snyders and recommended that a summary judgment be granted because, as a matter of law, they were "implied" co-insureds under the landlord's insurance policy with North River Insurance, and therefore could not be sued in subrogation (citing, inter alia, Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Okla. Ct. App. 1975)). The court premised its decision on the likelihood that "the Maine Law Court would adopt the Sutton doctrine," yet recognized that " here are no clear controlling precedents on this point in the decisions of the Law Court." The magistrate concluded that certification would be appropriate to answer the question of a residential tenant's liability to the landlord's insurer for fire damage to the apartment complex, in the absence of an express agreement that informed the tenant that he would be liable in subrogation. The United States District Court agreed that the question should be certified.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Answering the Question
Before addressing the merits, we assess the appropriateness of answering the certified question pursuant to 4 M.R.S.A. § 57 (Supp. 2001) and M.R. App. 25(a).
Both 4 M.R.S.A. § 57 and M.R. App. P. 25(a) provide that the federal courts may certify "one or more questions of law of this State, which may be determinative of the cause, t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|