Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Kaminsky
768 S.W.2d 818 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's failure to act against repeated and disruptive third-party conduct in common areas, when the landlord has the authority to control such areas, can constitute a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and support a claim of constructive eviction.
Facts:
- In May 1983, Dr. Kaminsky, a gynecologist whose practice includes performing abortions, leased office space from Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company.
- The lease contained an express covenant of quiet enjoyment, promising that Dr. Kaminsky could peaceably and quietly enjoy the premises.
- Beginning in June 1984, anti-abortion protestors repeatedly demonstrated at the building, primarily on Saturdays when abortions were scheduled.
- Protestors picketed in the building's parking lot, lobby, and atrium, approached patients, distributed literature, and chanted accusations.
- The protestors' activities escalated to blocking the stairs and the doorway to Dr. Kaminsky's office, and on occasion, they gained access to his waiting room.
- Dr. Kaminsky repeatedly complained to Fidelity's managing agents and requested assistance in controlling the protestors.
- Fidelity failed to provide security personnel on Saturdays as required by the lease and its agents failed to distribute trespass notices that its own attorneys had prepared.
- Dr. Kaminsky abandoned the leased premises around December 3, 1984, due to the disruptions.
Procedural Posture:
- Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company sued Dr. Kaminsky in trial court for unpaid rent after he abandoned the premises.
- Dr. Kaminsky asserted the affirmative defense of constructive eviction, claiming Fidelity breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
- A jury found that Fidelity had constructively evicted Dr. Kaminsky.
- The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against Fidelity.
- Fidelity filed a Motion for Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto and a Motion for a New Trial, both of which the trial court denied.
- Fidelity, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District.
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 landlord's failure to take action against protestors who repeatedly interfere with a tenant's medical practice in the building's common areas constitute a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, resulting in a constructive eviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Murphy, Justice.
Yes. A landlord's failure to act against disruptive protestors can constitute a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and result in a constructive eviction. Although a landlord is generally not responsible for the acts of third parties, this rule does not apply when the landlord permits the third party to act. Here, Fidelity's failure to provide security, its failure to issue trespass warnings it had prepared, and its general inaction in response to Dr. Kaminsky's repeated complaints amounted to allowing the protestors' conduct. This omission, which led to the substantial interference with Dr. Kaminsky's medical practice, was legally sufficient for a jury to find that Fidelity, not the protestors, caused the constructive eviction.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that a landlord's duty under the covenant of quiet enjoyment can extend to controlling the disruptive acts of third parties in common areas. It establishes that a landlord's inaction or omission can be the basis for a constructive eviction claim, shifting the focus from the third parties' conduct to the landlord's failure to respond. This precedent places an affirmative duty on commercial landlords to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable, substantial interference with a tenant's business operations, broadening the scope of landlord liability for breaches of quiet enjoyment.
Unlock the full brief for Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Kaminsky