Court Opinion

ID: 9731990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:04:00.355357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:22.410429
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I would reverse and remand the decision of the trial court. “Although a tenant is generally hable for fire damage caused to the leased premises by his negligence, if the parties intended to exculpate the tenant from negligently caused fire damage, their intent will be enforced.” Dix, 149 Ill. 2d at 319, 597 N.E.2d at 625. “The lease between the landlord and the tenant must be interpreted as a whole so as to give effect to the intent of the parties.” Dix, 149 Ill. 2d at 320, 597 N.E.2d at 625. In Cerny-Pickas, 7 Ill. 2d at 395, 398-99, 131 N.E.2d at 102, 103, the supreme court held the tenant to be covered by the landlord’s fire policy where the yield-back provision provided that lessee “will yield up said premises to Lessor in good condition and repair (loss by fire and ordinary wear excepted).” There was a similar clause, albeit one “not entirely free from ambiguity,” in Stein, 41 Ill. 2d at 39, 241 N.E.2d at 443. The very simple lease in Dix did not contain a yield-back clause, but the supreme court did not view that as fatal to the tenant’s position. Dix seems to have expanded Cerny-Pickas to provide coverage for the tenant (1) where the lease as a whole shows the intent of the parties that the lessee should not be hable; or (2) where the lease is basically silent on the subject but there is some suggestion the landlord will obtain a fire policy; but not (3) where the lease expressly provides the tenant is responsible for damage. Dix found it significant that the very simple lease before it assigned responsibility for damage to the tenant’s personal property (tenant, not landlord, responsible), but failed to address responsibility for damage to the leased premises, and the landlord took out a fire insurance policy to cover the leased premises. Dix, 149 Ill. 2d at 322, 597 N.E.2d at 626. In the present case, the lease does address responsibility for damage to the leased premises and it expressly makes the tenant responsible for that damage. Both the maintenance-of-the-premises clause and the yield-back clause provide that lessee shall “be responsible for any damage to the premises,” furnishings, and equipment, except “as is caused by normal wear and tear.” The landlord in this case did take out a fire insurance policy which covered the leased premises, but so did the tenant (a liability policy). This is not a case where we suspect some informal agreement that one person or the other will take out a policy which protects both. Defendant Shaffer directs our attention to the clause dealing with the use of the premises, providing that “Lessee shall not use or keep in or about the premises anything which will affect the validity of or increase the premiums on the Lessor’s property damage and liability insurance policies on the subject premises.” This language does suggest that the lessor will obtain fire insurance, but as discussed above, there is no indication here that lessor will obtain insurance and lessee need not do so. The clause also discusses the lessor’s liability insurance. Is the lessee to be covered by the lessor’s liability insurance? If lessee is playing with a gun in his apartment and negligently injures someone passing by on the street, must lessor’s liability insurance provide coverage? It would impose a severe burden to require an insurer to cover the liability of an individual with whom it had not dealt. See Dix, 149 Ill. 2d at 325, 597 N.E.2d at 627 (Freeman, J., specially concurring) (expressing concern that the logical import of these arguments might make the tenant a coinsured of the landlord’s negligence liability policy). The fire in this case damaged other apartments. What logic is there in making Shaffer a coinsured of Towne and Zilber’s fire policy as to those other apartments? Certainly Shaffer would be liable for any damage to the individual property of other tenants. Must Towne and Zilber’s liability policy provide coverage for that damage? This lease makes the tenant “responsible for any damage to the premises.” If the tenant lets his sink overflow, damaging the apartment and those below, if the tenant’s children knock holes in the walls, if the tenant’s dog scratches the floors, the tenant is responsible. Why should a tenant be responsible in all these situations but relieved of responsibility if he abandons burning candles which damage the apartment? Making individuals responsible for the damage they cause encourages individuals to act carefully. We should be cautious in destroying that incentive. If there were no insurance here, if this were simply a suit between the landlord and tenant, the tenant would clearly be hable. There is no justification for changing that result when the parties have purchased insurance. The majority states that “[t]his lease, which was drafted by Towne and Zilber, could have expressly provided that Shaffer would be liable for fire damage to the Lincoln Tower building resulting from his own negligence. However, it did not.” 331 Ill. App. 3d at 542. I suggest that the lease did so provide. “The Lessee hereby agrees to keep the premises in good order and repair and be responsible for any damage to the premises.” In hindsight any provision could be more specific (tenant shall be responsible for fire damage, damage caused by overflowing sinks, damage caused by children, and damage caused by dogs), but specificity carries its own problems. The lease here expressed the intent that the tenant would be responsible for “any damage.” A specific reference to fire damage could give rise to the argument that damage other than fire damage was not covered, the rule of ejusdem generis. The fact that this lease did not specifically refer to fire damage did not make it ambiguous. The doctrine of construction against the drafter is not really a rule of construction at all. Instead of attempting to discern the intent of the parties, the doctrine simply decides who will win the case, like flipping a coin. The rule is at best a secondary rule of interpretation, a last resort which may be invoked only after all the ordinary interpretive guides have been exhausted. Premier Title Co. v. Donahue, 328 Ill. App. 3d 161, 165-66, 765 N.E.2d 513, 517 (2002). We are not at that stage in this case. This lease expressly makes the tenant hable for any damage to the apartment and does not require either the landlord or the tenant to obtain insurance which covers the other.