Tenant Didn't Have to Insure Building Against Fire Damage

A tenant leased a building that was later destroyed by fire. The owner sued the tenant for violating the lease by failing to maintain fire insurance on the building. The owner claimed the tenant should have had “first party” insurance on the building that named the owner as an additional insured. The tenant asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, which it did. The owner appealed.

An Idaho appeals court refused to reinstate the lawsuit, ruling that the lease didn't require the tenant to have first-party fire insurance for the building. The lease merely said that the tenant must have insurance that contains “fire legal protection.” The court said this language referred to liability insurance—and didn't require the tenant to insure the building for fire damage [J.R. Simplot Co. v. Rycair, Inc.].