BROADCASTS.com

b'

Mutual Benefit Insurance Defeats Subrogation Effort\\nTypically, an insurer that pays a claim to an insured as a result of the\\n negligent acts of a third party an insurer has the right, in the name \\nof its insured, to sue the responsible party in the name of its insured.\\n The right to sue in the name of the insured results from the equitable \\nremedy of subrogation and is effective as long as the insured has not \\nwaived the right of its insurer to subrogate.\\n\\nIn Delaware there is an exception to the equitable remedy because \\nlandlords and tenants are presumed to be co-insureds under the \\nlandlord\'s fire insurance policy unless a tenant\'s lease clearly \\nexpresses an intent to the contrary. If the rule applies, the fact that \\nthe landlord\'s insurance is presumed to be for the mutual benefit of the\\n landlord and the tenant, and the insurer cannot pursue the tenant for \\nthe landlord\'s damages by way of subrogation.\\n\\nThe Superior Court ruled in the tenants\' favor at summary judgment that \\nthe rule applied because the lease did not clearly express an intent to \\nhold the tenants liable for the landlord\'s damages.\\n\\nIn Donegal Mutual Insurance Company A/S/O Seaford Apartment Ventures LLC\\n T/A The Villages Of Stoney Brook Apartments v.Thangavel and Muthusamy, \\nNo. 379, 2022, Supreme Court of Delaware\\xa0 (July 18, 2023) the \\napartment\'s insurer sued the tenants for the $77,704.06 to repair the \\nwater damage they caused.\\n\\nThe Superior Court ruled in the tenants\' favor at summary judgment that \\nthe rule applied because the lease did not clearly express an intent to \\nhold the tenants liable for the landlord\'s damages.\\n\\nANALYSIS\\n\\nIn Delaware landlords and tenants are presumed to be co-insureds under \\nthe landlord\'s fire insurance policy unless a tenant\'s lease clearly \\nexpresses an intent to the contrary. If the rule applies, the landlord\'s\\n insurer cannot pursue the tenant for the landlord\'s damages by way of \\nsubrogation.\\n\\nThe tenants who leased an apartment from Seaford Apartment Ventures, \\nLLC, Donegal\'s insured, were considered to be coinsueds since the lease \\ndid not express an intent to the contrary. The complaint alleged that \\nthe tenants hit a sprinkler head while they flew a drone inside the \\napartment. Water sprayed from the damaged sprinkler head and caused \\ndamage to the apartment building.\\n\\nThe Superior Court granted the tenants\' summary judgment motion. It \\nconcluded that the lease in this case was substantially similar to the \\nleases in three other Delaware all of which found that the leases did \\nnot clearly express an intent to the contrary.\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\n\\nThe Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court correctly found that\\n the apartment lease did not clearly express an intent that the tenants \\nwere responsible for the water damage in this case. Since the Seaford \\nApartment lease did not specifically address liability for fire or water\\n damage caused by the tenant\'s negligence the policy issued by Donegal \\nwas issued for the mutual benefit of the insured and the tenant and \\nDonegal had no right to subrogate..\\n