Opinion ID: 1420346
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: paragraph 5 relieved tdt of liability for the fire.

Text: In my view, the analysis contained in part III(A) of the Court's opinion incorrectly fails to consider all the pertinent provisions of the lease and erroneously relies on authorities from other jurisdictions, when decisions of this Court provide the correct focus for the analysis. In Safeco Ins. Cos. v. Weisgerber, 115 Idaho 428, 767 P.2d 271 (1989), a case in which a tenant was alleged to be negligent in causing a fire that damaged leased premises, the Court considered a lease provision similar to paragraph 5 of the lease between Empire and TDT, and concluded: When a tenant agrees to maintain the property in a good state and condition with damage by fire excepted, a landlord should reasonably be expected to bear the burdens associated with damage by fire and insure against that eventuality. Id. at 431, 767 P.2d at 274. In addition to paragraph 5 of the lease between Empire and TDT, the Court should also have considered paragraph 9, which states: USE-INSURANCE 9. The Lessee shall conduct and carry on in said premises, continuously during each and every business day of the term hereof, the business for which said premises are leased, and shall not use the premises for illegal purposes. The Lessee agrees that no stock of goods will be carried, or anything done in or about the premises which will prevent Lessee from obtaining insurance as herein required. Lessee will insure said premises for fire protection of $NA and on this day furnish a binder naming Lessor as insured; and the liability insurance shall show Lessor as additionally insured, and Lessee shall pay all premiums. In Bannock Bldg. Co. v. Sahlberg, 126 Idaho 545, 887 P.2d 1052 (1994), the Court said: [W]e hold that on a case-by-case basis, the trier of fact must focus on the terms of the lease agreement itself to determine what the reasonable expectations of the parties were as to who should bear the risk of loss for fire damage to the leased premises. With respect to the present case, we hold that summary judgment must be vacated and the case remanded to the district court to determine the issue of which party agreed to bear the risk of loss for fire damage, including who should bear that risk if the damage is determined to be caused by negligent acts of the tenant. Id. at 549, 887 P.2d at 1056 (emphasis added). In my view, the Court should focus on both paragraphs 5 and 9 in deciding which party bore the risk of loss if the lease premises were damaged by fire, even a fire caused by TDT's negligence. Paragraph 5 provides that TDT is not responsible for reasonable wear and tear and damage caused by fire or unavoidable casualty. If damage caused by fire did not include fire caused by TDT's negligence, the term unavoidable casualty would be prefaced by the word other, making the exclusion read damage caused by fire or other unavoidable casualty. As it reads, paragraph 5 does not limit the exclusion of TDT's responsibility to unavoidable fires. The decisions of this Court concerning the limitations on agreements limiting liability for negligence do not dictate a different result. In Anderson & Nafziger v. G.T. Newcomb, Inc., 100 Idaho 175, 595 P.2d 709 (1979), the Court said: It is a general rule of this state and the majority of American jurisdictions that a party may contract to absolve himself from certain duties and liabilities under a contract subject to certain limitations. However, it is nevertheless well established that courts will look with disfavor on such attempts to avoid liability and construe such provisions strictly against the person relying on them, especially when that person is the preparer of the document. Id. at 178, 595 P.2d at 712 (citations omitted). In Anderson, the party seeking to take advantage of the provision limiting liability had prepared the exculpatory provision. In the present case, Empire, not TDT, prepared the lease. The circumstances in the present case do not call for the Court to rewrite the provision limiting TDT's liability that was prepared by Empire. Also, contrary to the Court's opinion, paragraph 8 of the lease concerning care of the premises does not require a different reading of paragraph 5. In Miller v. Belknap, 75 Idaho 46, 266 P.2d 662 (1954), the Court said: It is axiomatic that a lease, like any other contract, is to be construed to give effect to the intention of the parties. In so doing, the courts generally hold that covenants for maintenance and repair and covenants to surrender in good condition are to be construed together, and, so construed, the covenant to surrender in good condition, wear and tear due to reasonable use excepted. The general force and effect of a covenant by the lessee to make all repairs to the leased premises during the term of the lease is restricted and limited by a surrender clause containing an exception as to damage by fire and ordinary wear and tear. The two provisions will be construed together as imposing upon the lessee an obligation to make all such repairs as may be necessary for the preservation of the premises in the condition in which he received them from his lessor, except repairs required by reason of ordinary wear and tear, or by reason of fire. Ordinary wear and tear include any usual deterioration from the use of the premises and by lapse of time. 45 A.L.R. Annotation 70. Id. at 52-53, 266 P.2d at 665-66. In my view, paragraph 5 excluded TDT's liability for damage to the leased premises caused by fire.