Opinion ID: 1184825
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the implied insured doctrine

Text: In Alaska Insurance Co. v. RCA Alaska Communications, Inc., we held that absent a clear contractual provision to the contrary, a tenant is an implied coinsured under the landlord's fire insurance policy. Therefore, we hold that if the landlord in a commercial lease covenants to maintain fire insurance on the leased premises, and the lease does not otherwise clearly establish the tenant's liability for fire loss caused by its own negligence, by reserving to the landlord's insurer the right to subrogate against the tenant, the tenant is, for the limited purpose of defeating the insurer's subrogation claim, an implied co-insured of its landlord. 623 P.2d 1216, 1220 (Alaska 1981). Chicago notes that both RCA and the present case involve commercial lease transactions. Moreover, in both cases it can be argued that extending coverage furthered the reasonable expectations of the landlord and tenant. Chicago thus contends that we should extend the rule announced in RCA and hold that Olympic became an implied insured of Alaskan General when Alaskan General agreed to procure liability insurance covering Olympic but failed to do so. Notwithstanding such factual similarities, we decline to characterize Olympic as an implied insured. The dispositive distinction between the present case and RCA is that in RCA the insurer seeking subrogation had contractually agreed to insure against loss due to fire. Indeed, the landlord in RCA had procured the fire insurance policy one year before the lease was executed. It is from that context which we assessed the reasonable expectations of the parties with respect to fire loss due to the tenant's negligence. In contrast, as we discussed at length in Section II of this opinion, Providence did not contractually agree to insure against risks attributable to Olympic. Presumably, the premiums charged by Providence reflected only the risks expressly set forth in the policy. We cannot say as a general rule that such premium rates would not vary were the landlord listed as a named insured. In sum, we find no compelling policy considerations to transfer the risk of loss from an insurance carrier that has agreed to bear the loss to one that has not. The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.