Morris v. Durham
443 S.W.2d 642, 1969 Ky. LEXIS 250 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lessor has no duty to rebuild premises that have been completely destroyed by fire unless the lease contains an explicit and unambiguous covenant obligating them to do so.
Facts:
- On January 14, 1964, Chester G. Luxon and Lillian Luxon leased a portion of a commercial building to Dallas C. Morris for a ten-year term.
- The lease contained a clause suspending rent if the premises were destroyed by fire until the lessors 'rebuilt or repaired' them.
- A separate clause stated the lessor would 'make the necessary repairs at the earliest possible time' in case of damage by fire.
- In 1966, Chester Luxon died, and ownership of the property passed to his widow and children (the owners).
- On February 8, 1968, the entire building, including the portion leased by Morris, was completely destroyed by fire.
- Two days after the fire, the owners gave Morris written notice that the lease was cancelled because of the building's destruction.
- Morris protested the cancellation, claiming the lease obligated the owners to rebuild the property for him.
- The owners refused to rebuild the building.
Procedural Posture:
- The property owners (Luxon's heirs) sued the tenant, Dallas C. Morris, in the trial court.
- The owners sought a declaration that the lease was terminated and damages for Morris's wrongful claims.
- Morris filed a counterclaim, asking the court to declare that the owners had a duty to rebuild the premises.
- The trial court held that the owners had an option to rebuild but were not required to, and that if they did, the lease would resume. No damages were awarded.
- Morris, the tenant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the state's highest court.
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 that suspends rent until the lessor rebuilds or repairs the premises, and another provision requiring the lessor to make 'necessary repairs' promptly, create an affirmative duty for the lessor to rebuild the entire building after it is completely destroyed by fire?
Opinions:
Majority - Steinfeld, Judge
No. A lease provision suspending rent until premises are rebuilt and a general covenant to make necessary repairs do not create an affirmative duty for a lessor to rebuild a building that has been completely destroyed. The common law rule is that a lessor is not required to rebuild after a substantial destruction by fire unless the lease explicitly imposes that obligation. The court reasoned that a duty to 'repair' applies to partial damage, not complete reconstruction from the ground up. The clause suspending rent is a provision for rent abatement for the tenant's benefit, not a covenant that affirmatively requires the landlord to rebuild. Citing precedent like Davis v. Parker, the court affirmed that even stronger language than that present here has been held insufficient to impose a duty to rebuild after total destruction. Therefore, the lease language did not obligate the owners to reconstruct the building.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strong common law default rule that a lessor is not an insurer of the tenant's continued occupancy in the face of total destruction of the property. It draws a crucial distinction between the duty to 'repair,' which implies fixing existing structures, and the duty to 'rebuild,' which involves complete reconstruction. The decision clarifies that to overcome the default rule, a lease must contain a clear, express, and unambiguous covenant to rebuild. This precedent guides the drafting of commercial leases, putting the onus on tenants who desire such protection to explicitly negotiate and include such a clause.
