Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Muldowney, 328 Conn. 428

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court held that a landlord’s insurer may pursue equitable subrogation against a tenant when the lease specifically allocates responsibility for tenant-caused damage and requires the tenant to obtain insurance. An express provision using the word "subrogation" is not required to overcome the default rule established in DiLullo v. Joseph. The court affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment awarding the insurer $61,302.70.

Holdings

1. A lease need not expressly state that the landlord's insurer has a right of subrogation. The specific-agreement requirement is satisfied when the tenant expressly agrees to bear responsibility for damage caused by the tenant's negligence and to obtain insurance covering that responsibility.
2. The lease constituted a sufficient specific agreement because it required the tenants to pay damages resulting from their breaches, hold the landlord harmless, and obtain $1 million in personal-liability and property-damage insurance for the mutual benefit of the tenants and landlord. Amica therefore had a right of equitable subrogation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a landlord's insurer may pursue equitable subrogation against a residential tenant when the lease does not expressly authorize subrogation but expressly makes the tenant responsible for damage caused by the tenant's negligence and requires the tenant to obtain liability and property-damage insurance.
2. Whether the lease provisions in this case constituted the specific agreement necessary to overcome DiLullo v. Joseph's default rule against subrogation by a landlord's insurer against a tenant.

Disposition

affirmed