Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation


Historically, a tenant who pays towards its landlord’s insurance premiums, pursuant to the terms of the lease, is generally considered a “co-insured” under the landlord’s policy.  See Lumber Mutual Insurance Co. v. Zoltek Corp., 647 N.E.2d 395 (Mass. 1995). However, a Florida court recently reviewed a lease with such a provision and came to an opposite conclusion.  Zurich American Insurance Company v. Puccini, LLC, 2019 WL 454222 (Fla. 3d DCA February 4, 2019).

In Zurich, the landlord and tenant entered into a fifteen-year lease, where in addition to rent, the tenant was required to pay seventy percent of the landlord’s operating expenses, which included the landlord’s insurance premiums. Zurich American Insurance Company, 2019 WL 454222, at * 4. After executing the lease, the property was destroyed by a fire, and a portion of the loss was covered by the landlord’s policy. The landlord’s carrier subsequently filed a subrogation action against the tenant.

Under the anti-subrogation rule, it is evident that an insurer cannot subrogate against its insured(s). Insurance Co. of North America v. Nezelek, 480 So.2d 1333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).  However, in the landlord/tenant context, the question of who is an insured under the applicable policy may not always be clear.  Courts throughout the country have adopted multiple approaches to analyze this issue.

One approach is derived from Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Okla. Civ. App. 1975), and commonly referred to as the “Sutton Rule.” In short, under the Sutton Rule, a tenant is presumed to be a co-insured under the landlord’s policy, and therefore subrogation is unavailable. The Sutton Court reasoned, “[t]his principle is derived from a recognition of a relational reality, namely, that both landlord and tenant have an insurable interest in the rented premises—the former owns the fee and the latter has a possessory interest.” Id. at 482. Conversely, some courts follow the anti-Sutton approach, which provides a presumption in favor of subrogation. Both of these presumptions can only be overcome by an express agreement to the contrary.

Florida, however, like many jurisdictions, has steered away from any strict presumptions, and instead has utilized a “case-by-case” approach. Under this approach, the Court examines the language of the lease between the parties to determine the parties’ intention as to who bears the risk of loss. See State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Loo, 27 So.3d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (A case-by-case analysis does not consider a presumption in favor or against subrogation, instead, it takes a subject approach to determine which party agreed to bear the risk of loss.). Generally speaking, this approach is closely aligned with traditional contract interpretation and analysis.

Under a “case-by-case” analysis, one particular lease provision that courts have emphasized where applicable is the requirement that the tenant procure insurance, or otherwise pay towards, the landlord’s insurance premiums. Courts have previously viewed this provision as strong, if not conclusive, evidence of the parties’ intent to shift the risk of any loss to the landlord’s insurer, and include the tenant as a co-insured under the policy, which effectively bars subrogation. See U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Norlin Indus., Inc., 428 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (lease provision required tenant to procure and maintain fire insurance coverage for the benefit of the tenant and landlord, therefore, subrogation was barred); Continental Ins. Co. v. Kennerson, 661 So.2d 325 (Fla 1st DCA 1995) (Tenant was required to pay towards landlord’s insurance premium in addition to rent, therefore tenant was co-insured); Underwriters of Lloyds of London v. Cape Publications, Inc., 63 So.3d 892 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (tenant’s rent included the pro-rated portion of the landlord’s premium, therefore, landlord and its insurer could not look to tenant for recovery.)

However, the Third District Court in Zurich determined that the particular requirement for the tenant to procure insurance was not dispositive. Instead, the Court took the analysis a step further and placed more weight on other provisions in the lease. For example, the lease provided that the “…Tenant shall be fully responsible for all repairs and damages if Premises are partially or totally destroyed by fire or any other casualty caused by Tenant or its agents.” Zurich American Insurance Company, 2019 WL 454222, at *3.

Notably, the Court also found that indemnity language in the lease indicated a clear intent by the parties to shift the risk of loss to the tenant, as opposed to the landlord’s insurer. Conversely, Florida courts who have examined leases in the past have failed to rely on indemnity language to overcome other provisions apparently evidencing the parties’ intent to shift the risk of loss to the landlord’s insurer. See U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 428 So.2d at 326 (Indemnity language did not defeat the intent of the parties to shift risk of loss to the landlord’s insurer); Underwriters of Lloyds of London, 63 So.3d at 896 (The requirement for the tenant to pay towards the landlord’s insurance premium controlled over general indemnity provision in lease, and, therefore, evidenced the parties’ intention for the landlord’s insurer to bear risk of loss.).

The Zurich decision seems to indicate a shift in an important area of subrogation law. Now, under Florida’s case-by-case approach, where subrogation may have previously been presumed to be excluded by the requirement for the tenant to pay towards the landlord’s insurance premiums, the Third District’s ruling indicates that insurers may be able to bring a subrogation claim, based on indemnity and/or other lease provisions. It is more important now than ever for insurers to consult with their counsel, and closely examine the lease language to determine the intent of the landlord and tenant.


A profile photo of Thomas D. Burgess, Jr.Thomas D. Burgess, Jr. | ASSOCIATE

Subrogation & Recovery

(813) 281-1900 | TAMPA

September 04, 2020 Blog PostAmazon: Primed for Trouble?

Amazon recently suffered a loss when a California appellate court found that Amazon could be held strictly liable for defective products sold by third parties through Amazon’s website...

Read More »
July 23, 2020 Blog PostMade Whole Doctrine Does Not Apply To Deductibles in New Jersey

The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently held that the made whole doctrine does not apply to deductibles or self-insured retentions.  In City of Asbury Park v. Star Insurance Company, a case of first impression in New Jersey, the United States Court of Appeals...

Read More »
July 15, 2020 Blog PostArbitration: An Effective Means to an End during COVID-19

These critical times of isolation and social distancing have proved to be difficult on many areas of the economy. The legal industry is certainly no different...

Read More »
May 27, 2020 Blog PostThe Made Whole Rule On The Forefront of A Whole Lot of Litigation

The Made Whole Rule and the handling of the insured’s deductible and uninsured losses alongside the subrogation claim remain ever-present topics of discussion amongst subrogation professionals and within subrogation case law...

Read More »
May 21, 2020 Blog PostButler's Thursday Tips #6 | Made-Whole Rule

Join us for this week's Thursday Tip as Partner Aaron Jacobs discusses the Made-Whole Rule in Subrogation law...

Read More »
April 30, 2020 Blog PostButler's Thursday Tips #4 | Staying Organized

Attorney Shaheen Nouri offers some tips on staying on top of cases for First-Party Coverage and Extra-Contractual matters...

Read More »
April 23, 2020 Blog PostButler's Thursday Tips #3 | Handling Business Loss Claims

Partner Jessica Skarin offers some tips on dealing with business loss claims for subrogation attorneys...

Read More »
January 06, 2020 Blog PostSubro Sense Podcast with Aaron Jacobs

Catch the latest in Subrogation news by listening to our Subro Sense Podcast!

Read More »
December 18, 2019 Blog PostAnd You Are Not Done; The Future of Products Liability Claims Against Amazon Still Uncertain

This past summer, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a seminal opinion in Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, Inc., which held Amazon could be liable as a seller for products sold by third parties on its website...

Read More »
July 09, 2019 Blog PostSUBRO IN SECONDS | VLOG 3

The trucking industry has experienced considerable growth in recent years.  Trucking and transportation needs are expected to continue for the foreseeable future and this may lead to an increase in the volume of damaged cargo claims...

Read More »
July 08, 2019 Blog PostAmazon is subject to liability as "Seller," rules the Third Circuit

The Third Circuit issued a groundbreaking opinion in Oberdorf v. Amazon.Com, 2019 WL 2849153, that may have a significant impact on the way Amazon conducts business. For the first time, a U.S. Court of Appeals has found Amazon is a “Seller” and therefore potentially liable for defective products purchased on its website. The Third Circuit diverged from the Fourth and Sixth Circuits which has previously found Amazon should not be subjected to liability...

Read More »
May 30, 2019 Blog PostShould Amazon be Liable for Products Sold in its Marketplace?

Amazon, the largest e-commerce website in the world and a member of the “Big Four” has repeatedly, and successfully, argued that the company is not liable for harm caused by the defective products that are sold by third parties on its website. Most recently, Amazon avoided potential liability arising from a house fire caused by a defective headlamp...

Read More »
May 08, 2019 Blog PostSUBRO IN SECONDS | VLOG 2

In the landlord/tenant context, the question of who is an insured under the applicable policy may not always be clear. Watch as Subrogation Partner Aaron Jacobs revisits subrogation in the landlord/tenant context on this episode of Subro in Seconds...

Read More »
April 17, 2019 Blog PostNotre Dame and Handling Tragic Losses

Imagine you just received an email, subject line “New Assignment – April 15 2019 loss – Paris France.” You open the email and learn that you will be assisting in the rebuilding of Notre Dame.

Read More »
February 28, 2019 Blog PostSubro in Seconds | Vlog 1

Aaron Jacobs recaps the latest in the world of Subrogation. In this episode, he discusses a recent Pennsylvania case decision that highlights difficulties associated with identifying liable parties in pipe freeze cases...

Read More »
February 18, 2019 Blog PostDiversity For Jurisdictional Purposes In Federal Litigation

Recently, I was speaking with a client, and we were discussing some of the unique issues subrogation professionals face on a regular basis. He stated that one of the things that new recovery adjusters are rarely familiar with is the concept of “diversity” for jurisdictional purposes in federal court litigation.

Read More »
January 25, 2019 Blog PostIntroducing the New Florida Supreme Court (from an Insurance Perspective)

Ron DeSantis, the newly sworn Governor of the State of Florida, was given a unique opportunity to remake the Florida Supreme Court within his first days of office.  Three of the seven justices of the Florida Supreme Court were forced to step down in the first days of January 2019 due to mandatory retirement.  Those justices were Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince, and Fred Lewis.

Read More »
November 09, 2017 Blog PostDon't Wreck Your Carmack Claim: Requirements for the Written Notice of Claim

Carmack claims are unique animals.  Carmack provides a shipper—or its subrogating insurance company—with the sole remedy for damages sustained when goods are shipped between states.  As the sole remedy, it’s imperative that a claimant strictly comply with Carmack’s notice of claim requirements and any additional notice requirements outlined in the bill of lading.  As subrogation professionals, when a cargo claim comes in, the bill of lading should be the first document reviewed to determine what needs to be done—in addition to the five items listed below—to provide proper notice of the claim to the carrier.  Failure to file proper written notice will bar the claim. 

Read More »
September 25, 2017 Blog PostA Primer on Florida's "25 Percent Rule" for Roof Repair/Replacement

The 2014 Florida Existing Building Code (the “Code”) contains what is conventionally called the “25 percent rule” (the “Rule”). The Rule applies to roof repair of any commercial or residential building.  In a nutshell, the Rule states that if more than 25 percent of a roof or section of a roof is “repaired, replaced, or recovered” then the “entire roofing system” or “roof section” must be brought up to code.  Obviously, the Rule is of extreme importance for Florida Irma property claims. Here is the text of the Rule:

Read More »
September 21, 2017 Blog PostThe Rule of Sevens: Evaluating Claims Involving a Child

As subrogation professionals, we may be tasked with evaluating property loss claims where a child caused or contributed to the property damage.  For example, is a child playing with matches or a lighter liable for a fire loss?  Or, is a child liable for driving a vehicle into the neighbor’s home? In some instances, a parent may be held liable for the child’s acts.   As more fully set forth below, when evaluating a claim involving a child, it is important to evaluate the age and capacity of the at-fault party, and to be familiar with state specific statutes regarding parental liability. 

Read More »
September 01, 2017 Blog PostHurricane Hindsight is 20/20

It took years of depositions and other discovery to realize that that most of my 2004-2005 hurricane condominium association claims were much simpler to defend than I thought.   The center of gravity of these claims was the proper calculation of Actual Cash Value (ACV).

Read More »
August 29, 2017 Blog PostThe Common Interest Doctrine: Maintaining Confidentiality

While confidentiality is usually destroyed when communications between an attorney and client take place in the presence of a third party or when work product is shared with others, those communications can remain protected if the common interest doctrine applies.

Read More »
August 23, 2017 Blog Post"It's Not Old, It's A Classic!": Risk in Aging Aircraft with GARA Protecting Manufacturers

The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (“GARA”) was a byproduct of aging aircraft, rising costs, and tort liability in the United States.  Congress was concerned that aircraft manufacturers were being devastated by liability costs for accidents occurring long after the planes left the manufacturer.  These liability costs drove up the price for aircraft beyond what the market would bear, and general aviation experienced a sharp decline.  The General Aviation Manufacturers Association reports the total U.S.-manufactured general aviation airplane shipments went from a high of 17,811 in 1978 to a low of 929 in 1994.  As a result many manufacturers stopped making certain model aircraft, including Cessna which ceased production of all piston aircraft in 1986. 

Read More »
August 15, 2017 Blog PostThe ABC's of ACV in Subrogation Claims

Oftentimes, during the course of a subrogation claim, third-party liability adjusters will refuse to pay the full amount of the “Repair Cost Value” (“RCV”) of the damages demanded, and contend that they only owe “Actual Cash Value” (“ACV”), regardless of the amount paid in the underlying first party property claim adjustment.   Oftentimes, this position is not necessarily predicated on a specific legal doctrine or theory, but rather a general “understanding” that is commonly used in the insurance context.   The true measure of damages, in the legal context, is always dictated by state law. 

Read More »
July 18, 2017 Blog PostSubrogation Following a Hurricane is All Hands on Deck

Hurricane season began June 1 st, and runs through November 30th.   However, we are about 30 days from approaching the peak of hurricane season, when the season becomes its most active.  Weather predictors are predicting an above-average number of storms this year, with 14 expected named storms.  As anyone who has worked “CAT” claims knows, when a hurricane hits, it’s “all hands on deck.”  This is true for subrogation professionals, as well.  There is a significant increase in the number of claims that must be triaged, with a goal of finding any claims that might have subrogation potential. 

Read More »
November 16, 2015 Blog PostWest Virginia Supreme Court Allows Landlord's Subrogation against Tenant

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals recently opened the door further for a landlord’s insurer subrogating against a tenant for damages to the landlord’s property.

Read More »
October 13, 2014 Blog PostIs Texas Following Florida's Lead On Changing The Economic Loss Rule?

Practicing in both Florida and Texas I have seen the Economic Loss Rule evolve over the years, and its direct impact on the recovery potential for our subrogation claims appears to be moving in a positive direction. Recently, the Texas Supreme Court held in a per curium opinion in Chapman Custom Homes, Inc. v. Dallas Plumbing Co., 2014 WL 4116839 (Tex. Aug. 22, 2014), that a claimant can now bring a tort claim (negligence, in this case) against a party, as well as a breach of contract claim. In doing so, the Court applied ...

Read More »

Key Points