Tenant Gets Rent Abatement Due to Damage It Should Have Prevented

What Happened: A car dealership property was vandalized after the tenant took possession but before it opened. The tenant couldn’t use the space for three-and-a-half months but continued to pay the rent. After repairs were done, the tenant asked for a rent abatement under the following lease clause:

Section 9.6: In the event of [partial damage to the premises] for which the Tenant is not responsible under the Lease, the rent payable for period required for the repair of such damages shall be abated in proportion to the degree to which Tenant’s use of the premises is impaired [emphasis added].

The landlord claimed the tenant was responsible for the damage and nixed the rent abatement.

Decision: The California court ruled that the clause did apply and the tenant was entitled to an abatement.  

Reasoning: What did the italicized language of Section 9.6 mean? The landlord’s theory was that “responsible” meant responsibility for causing the damage. The tenant was responsible, it argued, because the vandalism wouldn’t have happened if the tenant had met its lease duty to keep the property properly secured. But the court didn’t buy it. A “fair and reasonable interpretation” of the phrase “for which the Tenant is not responsible under the Lease” is as referring to which party was responsible for paying for repairs. And since the landlord was clearly responsible for repairs in this case, the tenant was entitled to rent abatement under Section 9.6.

• Tricolor Auto Group v. 603 San Fernando Rd.: 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6394, 2019 WL 4667679