Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A very important lease provision, particularly from the tenant's perspective, is an effective subrogation waiver. The subrogation waiver essentially provides that in the event of a casualty that is caused by the negligence of one party to a lease, the negligent party is nonetheless not liable for the resulting damage to the extent that the damage is either covered by applicable insurance proceeds or to the extent it would have been covered by insurance proceeds had the other party to the lease maintained the insurance as required under the lease. Subrogation waivers provide, in effect, that both parties to the lease benefit from the casualty insurance maintained by either party. This concept is especially fair to the tenant in net lease situations where the tenant pays its pro rata share of the landlord's casualty insurance. Landlords also benefit from a mutual subrogation waiver to the extent that the tenant's leasehold improvements, fixtures, and personal property are damaged or destroyed due to the landlord's negligence.
Because subrogation provisions are often not part of a landlord's form lease, the savvy tenant must negotiate for the addition of such a provision. Many insurance carriers will, at first, demur when asked to provide a subrogation waiver and the requesting party frequently must be persistent in order to obtain one. This is the principal reason that landlords generally object to the insertion of a subrogation waiver in favor of a tenant. It is also critically important for the lease to provide that the party that waives its carrier's right of subrogation against the other party be required to maintain an agreed-upon level and type of casualty insurance coverage. If the lease does not require such coverage, the waiver will most likely be ineffective and the party that purportedly benefits from a waiver may face catastrophic liability in the event of a significant casualty.
A very important lease provision, particularly from the tenant's perspective, is an effective subrogation waiver. The subrogation waiver essentially provides that in the event of a casualty that is caused by the negligence of one party to a lease, the negligent party is nonetheless not liable for the resulting damage to the extent that the damage is either covered by applicable insurance proceeds or to the extent it would have been covered by insurance proceeds had the other party to the lease maintained the insurance as required under the lease. Subrogation waivers provide, in effect, that both parties to the lease benefit from the casualty insurance maintained by either party. This concept is especially fair to the tenant in net lease situations where the tenant pays its pro rata share of the landlord's casualty insurance. Landlords also benefit from a mutual subrogation waiver to the extent that the tenant's leasehold improvements, fixtures, and personal property are damaged or destroyed due to the landlord's negligence.
Because subrogation provisions are often not part of a landlord's form lease, the savvy tenant must negotiate for the addition of such a provision. Many insurance carriers will, at first, demur when asked to provide a subrogation waiver and the requesting party frequently must be persistent in order to obtain one. This is the principal reason that landlords generally object to the insertion of a subrogation waiver in favor of a tenant. It is also critically important for the lease to provide that the party that waives its carrier's right of subrogation against the other party be required to maintain an agreed-upon level and type of casualty insurance coverage. If the lease does not require such coverage, the waiver will most likely be ineffective and the party that purportedly benefits from a waiver may face catastrophic liability in the event of a significant casualty.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.