Bovis v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
505 So. 2d 661, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1058, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7722 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lessee's agreement in a lease to carry public liability insurance naming the lessor as an insured must be construed to cover premises liability, benefiting the lessor for injuries arising from dangerous conditions on the leased premises, regardless of who caused the condition, to effectively shift the risk of loss to an insurer.
Facts:
- 7-ELEVEN, Inc. (lessor) and J. Adrian Bovis (lessee) entered into a written lease agreement for a building.
- The lease stipulated that 7-ELEVEN would maintain the foundation, exterior walls, and roof of the leased building.
- The lease also included a clause stating that Bovis would hold 7-ELEVEN harmless from claims for damages caused by Bovis's negligence, with an exception for claims arising from 7-ELEVEN's improper maintenance of the foundation, exterior walls, or roof if Bovis had promptly notified 7-ELEVEN.
- A separate clause in the lease required Bovis to carry public liability insurance naming 7-ELEVEN as an insured with specified minimum coverage amounts.
- An employee of Bovis was injured when she slipped and fell in the leased building due to water on the floor.
- The employee alleged that the water resulted from 7-ELEVEN's negligence in failing to properly maintain the roof.
Procedural Posture:
- An employee of J. Adrian Bovis, after recovering workers' compensation, sued 7-ELEVEN, Inc. (lessor) in a trial court, alleging 7-ELEVEN's negligence in roof maintenance caused her slip and fall injury.
- 7-ELEVEN, Inc. filed a third-party action against J. Adrian Bovis (lessee) in the trial court, asserting that Bovis breached the lease agreement by failing to provide public liability insurance covering 7-ELEVEN's liability to the employee.
- The trial court accepted Bovis's argument and entered summary judgment in favor of J. Adrian Bovis and against 7-ELEVEN, Inc., ruling as a matter of law that the lease provision did not obligate Bovis to provide public liability insurance covering the type of liability asserted by the employee (i.e., lessor's own negligence).
- 7-ELEVEN, Inc. appealed the trial court's summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, as the appellant.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lease provision requiring the lessee to carry public liability insurance naming the lessor as an insured cover liability for premises defects caused by the lessor's alleged negligence in maintaining the roof, or is it limited only to liability stemming from the lessee's own operations and activities?
Opinions:
Majority - Cowart
No, a lease provision requiring the lessee to carry public liability insurance naming the lessor as an insured does cover liability for premises defects, including those caused by the lessor's alleged negligence in maintaining the roof. The court reasoned that the purpose of such an insurance clause is to shift the risk of premises liability, regardless of who or what caused the dangerous condition, to an insurer. The court found that if the agreement to provide insurance were construed to cover only the lessee's own operations and activities, it would render the provision largely meaningless for the lessor, as the lessor generally would not be liable for the lessee's negligence in the first place. Both the lessor and lessee have potential liability to third parties for injuries resulting from dangerous conditions on the leased premises, and the clause is designed to provide protection for the lessor from such liability. The lease's indemnity clause, with its exception related to the lessor's duty to maintain the roof after lessee notification, further indicates that the parties contemplated the lessee's potential liability arising from premises conditions not solely caused by its own activities.
Concurring - Orfinger
Justice Orfinger concurred with the majority's conclusion and reasoning.
Concurring - Dauksch
Justice Dauksch concurred in the conclusion only.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial guidance on the interpretation of insurance clauses in commercial leases, establishing a broad construction that favors comprehensive risk allocation. It clarifies that a lessee's agreement to provide public liability insurance naming the lessor as an insured is intended to cover premises liability, even if the dangerous condition stems from the lessor's contractual maintenance duty. This decision reinforces the principle that the possessor of the premises (lessee) bears an independent tort duty to prevent injury from dangerous conditions, regardless of the owner's (lessor's) separate contractual obligations. The ruling ensures that the intent to shift broad liability risks to an insurer, a common goal in commercial leases, is upheld, preventing narrow interpretations that would undermine the lessor's intended protection.
