Beveridge v. Savage
285 Neb. 991
| Neb. | 2013Background
- Beveridge (landlord) and Savage (tenant) signed a residential lease for Beveridge’s Plattsmouth property.
- Lease required the tenant to obtain a $100,000 liability and renter’s insurance at tenant’s expense.
- The Savages obtained a renter’s protection policy; Beveridge was insured by a separate policy on the property.
- A fire caused by a child using a lighter damaged the house; Beveridge’s insurer paid $161,545.01 plus lost rent of $7,824.18.
- The district court dismissed the subrogation action, concluding the Savages were coinsureds under Beveridge’s policy; Beveridge appealed.
- Appellate review focused on whether the lease expressly rebutted the presumption that the tenant is coinsured under the landlord’s fire insurance policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the lease expressly rebut the coinsured presumption? | Savages: lease does not clearly exclude coinsurance; no express subrogation provision. | Savages: no express agreement transferring fire-loss risk to tenants. | Yes; lease fails to expressly rebut coinsurance; Savages coinsured; action improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tri-Par Investments v. Sousa, 268 Neb. 119 (Neb. 2004) (landlord cannot subrogate against tenant absent express agreement; coinsureds rule)
- Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Okla. App. 1975) (presumption of tenant coinsurance absent express lease language to the contrary)
- Buckeye State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Humlicek, 284 Neb. 463 (Neb. 2012) (if lease requires fire insurance on realty, tenant bears responsibility; otherwise landlord’s policy covers)