I have advocated for years that before signing a commercial lease, both prospective tenants and landlords should have their leases reviewed by a litigation attorney, not simply a business or transactional specialist.
Transactional attorneys are, by their nature, focused on closing the deal. Litigation attorneys, on the other hand, often see the deal as a problem waiting to happen where drafting weaknesses, particularly in the otherwise innocuous boiler-plate provisions, are left untouched. It is in the boiler-plate that litigation careers can be made.
Take for instance a typical insurance clause – landlords and tenants will each obtain insurance coverage protecting their respective insurable interests. Of course there may be more complicated provisions, but it is common that each side to the commercial lease secure insurance. So what happens when a tenant fails to obtain insurance, or coverage is mistakenly cancelled for non-payment, and one winter the roof collapses – a roof the landlord controls – causing damage to the tenant’s business? The tenant can sue the landlord right? Possibly wrong or very wrong.
In Creative Dental Concepts, LLC v Keego Harbor Development, LLC, Case No. 315117 (June 26, 2014), this very thing happened and one sentence in the insurance boiler-plate clause – “If either party fails to obtain insurance, it bears the full risk of its own loss” was ruled to bar any claim for negligence by the tenant against the landlord for breach of duty to maintain, inspect and repair the roof. This one sentence, the court reasoned, set forth in clear terms of the parties’ unambiguous decision to bar claims when insurance was not obtained as the lease required. This particular language may not have been deemed a significant detail given the parties’ clear intent to obtain insurance, but hindsight is 20/20.
There is often a resistance by deal makers to avoid “lawyering up the deal” for fear of scuttling it or making it too complicated or expensive. There can be fair concerns. However, a pre-lease litigation screen might have caught this little gem, and quite possibly avoided for the tenant the loss it must now fully absorb.
Matthew J. Boettcher is a partner in the firm’s Bloomfield Hills office and a member of Plunkett Cooney’s Commercial Litigation Practice Group. He concentrates his practice in the area of commercial litigation with ...
Add a comment
- Commercial Liability
- Business Torts
- Business Risk Management
- Commercial Real Estate
- Commercial Leasing
- Real Estate
- Civil Litigation
- Real Estate Mortgages
- Commercial Loans
- Regulatory Law
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Shareholder Liability
- Risk Management
- Damages Recovery
- Fraud Activity
- Tax Law
- Cyber Attack
- Class Action
- Product Liability
- Biometric Data
- Banking Law
- Statute of Limitations
- Noncompete Agreements
- Internet Law
- Consumer Protection
- Residential Liability
- Zoning and Planning
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Unfair Competition
- Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
- Wait, I Have to Pay my Own Attorney? But I Won the Case?
- Preliminary Injunctions in Michigan, the More They Change the More They Stay the Same
- President Biden Signs Cryptocurrency Executive Order Establishing Whole-of-Government Approach to Regulating Digital Assets Industry
- My 5 Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Am I at Fault for Breach of Contract if the Other Party Breached It First?
- Maximizing Damages Recovery in Michigan's District Courts Challenged by Jurisdiction Limits
- Proliferation of Security Cameras, Drones Doesn't Necessarily Reduce Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Under the Law
- Does Sympathy or Empathy Have a Place in the Courtroom?
- No Light Yet at End of COVID-19 Real Estate Tunnel
- When are Clear, Unambiguous Contracts Nonetheless Ambiguous?