Court Opinion

ID: 9737916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:36:53.456784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:02.405907
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
In this case, Fresh Cut, Inc. agreed in August 1986, to lease an uninhabitable building owned by Fazli. Only the lease's alleged sprinkler maintenance requirement made the building legally fit for use. During the term of the lease, after repeated warnings to Fazli from the Marion County Fire Department, the worst finally happened: in 1989 the building burned down, imposing losses on both Fazli and Fresh Cut.
Now, after having benefitted substantially from this lease, Fazli wishes to benefit yet again. Specifically, after having received approximately $100,000 in rent, he wants this Court to declare that a landlord may delegate his duty to maintain fire prevention devices, like the sprinklers in this case, to a tenant, so that Fazli may receive an additional $200,000 (or more) in insurance proceeds. Unfortunately, a majority of this Court is ready to do precisely that, denying that there exists any public policy reason for voiding a contract which purports to delegate such duty.
The majority correctly identifies the factors that are relevant when deciding whether to enforce a contract where it arguably violates public policy: (1) the subject matter of the contract; (2) the strength of the public policy underlying the statute; (8) the likelihood that refusal to enforce the contract will further that policy; (4) the seriousness and justness of any forfeiture suffered by the party attempting to enforce the bargain; and (5) the parties' relative bargaining power. These are similar to the factors in the old Tunkl test, but, since the California Supreme Court was applying a statute, the factors are not identical. See Tunkl v. Regents of University of California, 60 Cal.2d 92, 32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 35, 383 P.2d 441, 443 (1963). However, it is worth observing that in our most recent relevant case, Straub v. Todd (1994), Ind., 645 N.E.2d 597 (parent cannot contractually delegate his child support obligation because of important public policy, ie., ensuring child's ability to receive support from two parents), only the first two factors were discussed explicitly, while the last two were discussed not at all.
The court errs in its application of those factors to this case. While the maintenance of fire prevention equipment may not be a unique subject for a contract, the public policy of ensuring such maintenance is overwhelming, evidenced by the penalty assessed upon conviction for non-maintenance. See *1134Indianapolis and Marion Co., IN, Code § 1-8. The Indianapolis Code incorporates by reference N.F.P.A. 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and 183A, Inspections, Testing and Maintenance of Sprinkler Systems (National Fire Prevention Ass'n 1987). Code of Indianapolis, § 12-4. N.E.P.A. 18 states, in pertinent part, "The owner is responsible for the condition of the sprinkler system...." N.F.P.A. 13A says, "The responsibility for properly maintaining a sprinkler system is the obligation of the owners of the property."
The willingness of the public to impose criminal liability on a violator is certainly strong evidence of a weighty public policy. Refusing to enforce this contract would ensure that other owners carefully check their holdings to insure that the fire prevention systems are adequate and would do no more than put Fazli in the situation that he should have been in, i.e., responsible for his own losses that were due to the fire. I believe that the parties bargaining power was about equal, so that factor is not particularly important. This contract was an obvious attempt to avoid the important public policy of requiring owners to maintain essential fixtures upon their property. See Vandalia R.R. Co. v. Fort Wayne and N. Ind. Traction Co. (1918), 68 Ind.App. 120, 118 N.E. 839.
I dissented in Stroub, precisely because the majority was too quick to dismiss the contract. In Straub, we looked with kindness upon, and voided the contract made by, a woman who, according to this Court's interpretation of the facts, attempted to trade her daughter's right to child support for sex. Should we be less solicitous towards a Hoosier business like Fresh Cut?
SELBY, J., concurs.