Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
September 06, 2024
Right to Subrogation Limited by Lease

Lessors Should be Entitled to Waive Insurer’s Right of Subrogation
Post 4867

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gGHhae7d, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g5TbD-aS and at https://lnkd.in/gjFykVPy and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.

In a subrogation action, Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (Philadelphia), as subrogee of Renaissance Realty Group, Inc. (Renaissance), appealed from the circuit court’s partial grant of defendant Norinaica Gonzalez’s motion to dismiss.

In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, a/s/o Renaissance Realty Group, Inc. v. Norinaica Gonzalez, 2024 IL App (1st) 230833, No. 1-23-0833, Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division (August 23, 2024)

BACKGROUND

On September 25, 2019, Renaissance and Gonzalez entered into a written lease agreement (hereinafter “Lease”) for an apartment (“Unit 601”) in a multi-unit building located on the 1500 block of West Belmont Avenue in Chicago.

The Lease contains multiple provisions relevant to the resolution of Philadelphia’s claims. On the first page of the Lease, Unit 601 is described as the “Leased Address (Premises)” and Tenant was required to maintain the Premises in a clean, presentable and safe condition at all times.

On January 20, 2021, Philadelphia sued Gonzalez as subrogee to Renaissance. Therein, Philadelphia alleged that on August 7, 2020, a small fire started in Gonzalez’s kitchen in Unit 601, which caused “a substantial amount of smoke” and activated the building’s sprinkler system. The sprinkler system caused significant water damage to both Unit 601 and other units, totaling over $200,000.

THE INSURANCE CLAIMS

Renaissance submitted an insurance claim to Philadelphia, which paid “in excess of $50,000 to cover” repairs and lost rental income. Philadelphia alleged Gonzalez was liable to reimburse Philadelphia, as subrogee to Renaissance, for this coverage. Specifically, count I of the complaint alleged Gonzalez negligently caused the fire that resulted in the property damage. Count II alleged that Gonzalez breached the Lease because it required her to pay for any damages caused by her negligence, but she violated this term by refusing to reimburse Philadelphia.

Gonzalez moved to dismiss the complaint arguing she was an implied coinsured of Renaissance’s policy pursuant to the Illinois Supreme Court’s holding in Dix Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaFramboise, 149 Ill.2d 314 (1992), and thus could not be sued by Philadelphia in subrogation.

On June 30, 2021, Philadelphia responded, arguing in relevant part that the Lease terms demonstrated the parties’ intent not to make Gonzalez an implied coinsured.

The trial court found Philadelphia could not “seek compensation for damage beyond” Unit 601. Philadelphia moved for summary judgment regarding the damages arising from Unit 601 only, which it alleged totaled $18,831.04. The circuit court granted Philadelphia’s motion for summary judgment as to liability only on Counts I and II for damages to Unit 601, with the total of those damages to be determined at trial.

ANALYSIS

This case presents a matter of contractual interpretation, as a lease is a contract and, as such, it is governed by the rules which govern contracts generally. Where a contract’s terms are clear and unambiguous, the appellate court must enforce those terms without reference to extrinsic sources.

The key factor in determining whether the parties intended to exculpate the tenant from liability for negligently caused fire damage to the leased premises is the allocation of insurance burdens as evidenced by the lease. When the provisions of the lease either explicitly or implicitly indicate that the lessor will obtain insurance against the risk of fire loss to its building, the tenant will normally not be liable for negligently causing fire damage to that building unless the parties’ contrary intent is clear. Such a rule gives effect to the parties’ probable and customary intent that the landlord is to look to the insurance he has agreed to procure for indemnification for fire loss.

The Court of Appeals found that Philadelphia and Gonzalez did not intend for Gonzalez to be generally liable for negligently caused fire damage outside of Unit 601. If the parties had intended for Gonzalez to be liable for negligent conduct in other areas besides Unit 601, they would have done so with lease terms making her liable for negligently causing damage to the “property,” “common area,” or “elsewhere in the building.” The Lease does not do so.

Philadelphia’s final claim is that equitable principles dictate that it should have a right to recover on a subrogation claim against Gonzalez. This argument fails because Philadelphia cannot overcome a core tenet of the equitable remedy of subrogation-a subrogee can have no greater right than the subrogor and can enforce only such rights as a subrogor could enforce per the Lease Renaissance has no right to recover against Gonzalez for damages outside of Unit 601, and, therefore, neither does Philadelphia as subrogee to Renaissance’s rights.

Because the Lease shows the parties’ intended Gonzalez not to be liable for damages outside of Unit 601the circuit court’s limitation on Philadelphia’s recoverable damages was affirmed.

ZALMA OPINION

Suing, in subrogation, a tenant of an insured generally causes problems between insured’s and the insurer. For that reason most commercial property policies include a provision that the insured may waive the insurer’s right to subrogation against a tenant. Since the landlord did not waive the court made a Solomon-like decision and only held her responsible for damage to her unit in the building. The Court of Appeals did justice and the insured and its tenant resolved the dispute. Many courts, including Illinois, include an exclusion not written, that Philadelphia’s insurance was issued for the mutual benefit of the insured and the tenant.

(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkPlease tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe.

00:10:00
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
October 13, 2025
Failure to File Suit Promptly is Fatal

See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.

Private Limitation In Accordance With Statute Defeats a Claim

Post 5204

There is No Good Reason to Delay Filing Suit

In Christian Care Center v. American Alternative Insurance Corporation, Civil Action No. 4:25-CV-00321-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division (October 6, 2025) a private limitation of action provision effective barred the suit.

KEY FACTS:

Plaintiff and Defendant:

The case involves an insured, the Christian Care Center (Plaintiff) and its insurer American Alternative Insurance (Defendant) in a coverage dispute.

Loss Event:

Plaintiff’s property sustained damage due to a storm on April 27, 2020.
Insurance Claim:

Plaintiff submitted a claim to Defendant on February 2, 2022, which was denied on July 29, 2022.

Lawsuit:

Plaintiff sued alleging breach of contract and violations of Chapters 541 ...

00:08:11
placeholder
Live chatted 10/10/2025
October 10, 2025
Failure to File Suit Promptly is Fatal

See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.

Private Limitation In Accordance With Statute Defeats a Claim

Post 5204

There is No Good Reason to Delay Filing Suit

In Christian Care Center v. American Alternative Insurance Corporation, Civil Action No. 4:25-CV-00321-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division (October 6, 2025) a private limitation of action provision effective barred the suit.

KEY FACTS:

Plaintiff and Defendant:

The case involves an insured, the Christian Care Center (Plaintiff) and its insurer American Alternative Insurance (Defendant) in a coverage dispute.

Loss Event:

Plaintiff’s property sustained damage due to a storm on April 27, 2020.
Insurance Claim:

Plaintiff submitted a claim to Defendant on February 2, 2022, which was denied on July 29, 2022.

Lawsuit:

Plaintiff sued alleging breach of contract and violations of Chapters 541 ...

00:08:11
placeholder
October 08, 2025
Insured Can’t Assign Bad Faith Claim

Insured May Intervene to Assert Bad Faith Claim Not Assigned

Post 5203

See the full video at https://rumble.com/v7013x8-insured-cant-assign-bad-faith-claim.html and at https://youtu.be/e8OApzn6YZs, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.

Judge Requires Conflict Between Different District Courts in Louisiana Requires Conflict to be Resolved on Appeal

In Allstate Construction, Inc. v. Ohio Security Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 23-01295-BAJ-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (September 30, 2025) Vina Cleaners, the insured, assigned its claim against Ohio Security to Allstate Construction but did not assign its rights to sue for the tort of bad faith so it intervened in Allstate Construction’s suit.

Background and Procedural History:

In an insurance dispute following damage caused by Hurricane Ida to Vina Cleaners’ property. Vina Cleaners was insured under a commercial policy with the Defendant, Ohio Security Insurance Company. Vina Cleaners assigned its rights ...

00:07:47
October 17, 2025
Abstention Protects Against The Risk of Potentially Contradictory Fact Finding

Sometimes the Best Court Decision is to Do Nothing

Post 5209

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/abstention-protects-against-risk-potentially-fact-zalma-esq-cfe-chkzc, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.

In Starr Indemnity & Liability Company v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, No. 24-CV-3309 (PKC) (TAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (September 30, 2025) the parties C.C.C. and HCC filed actions against Scottsdale in New York state court regarding Scottsdale’s insurance coverage obligations.

FACTS

Underlying Labor Litigation:

Hector David Campoverde sustained injuries from a scaffold fall at a construction site in Brooklyn, New York, on September 14, 2015. Campoverde, an employee of Vazquez Bro Restoration Inc., was working for C.C.C. Renovation Inc., a subcontractor of L&M Builders Group LLC.

LEGAL ISSUES

Declaratory Judgment:

Starr sought a declaratory judgment regarding Scottsdale’s obligations under the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 policies.
Abstention ...

post photo preview
October 16, 2025
Federal Arbitration Provision Applied

Oregon Statute Does Not Reverse Preempt Federal Arbitration Act

Post 5208

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/federal-arbitration-provision-applied-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-9kjmc and at https:/zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200.

Litigation Over Costs to Clean Superfund Site Forced to Arbitration

Federal Arbitration Provision Applied

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/federal-arbitration-provision-applied-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-9kjmc and at https:/zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200.

Oregon Statute Does Not Reverse Preempt Federal Arbitration Act

Post 5208

Litigation Over Costs to Clean Superfund Site Forced to Arbitration

In Pacificorp et al v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company, et al, No. 3:25-cv-00163-AB, United States District Court, D. Oregon (October 7, 2025) Plaintiff PacifiCorp sued its excess liability insurers, for failing to indemnify costs related to the Portland Harbor Superfund Site only to have the suit stayed and arbitration compelled. This case tried to change the...

post photo preview
October 15, 2025
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter – October 15, 2025

ZIFL – Volume 28, Issue 20

THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gt5Kyumz, See the full 18 page issue of ZIFL at https://lnkd.in/gBUgEBmP, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.

Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at https://lnkd.in/gVT5G9s

The Contents of the October 15, 2025 Issue of ZIFL Includes:

Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 28th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/

The Contents of the October 15, 2025 Issue of ZIFL Includes:

Insurer’s Attempt to Obtain Summary Judgment Against Fraudsters Fails

To Prove Fraud Admissible Evidence is Required

Allegations That Health ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals