The Leasing Hotline

The district court awarded summary judgment to the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded the matter. It held that the legal relationship between the owner and the premises is not necessarily completely severed once the owner leases the premises to a third party. It held that the extent of responsibility of an owner will depend upon the extent to which the owner maintains a possessory interest or control over premises that contain a defect alleged to have been the proximate cause of injuries suffered by a plaintiff.

Here, the appellate court considered that the lease between the defendant and the plaintiff's employer allowed the defendant to alter, add to, or improve the premises. Thus, the landlord retained a possessory interest or control over the very activity the plaintiff alleged resulted in his injuries. Consequently, as a matter of law, the landlord was not entitled to summary judgment in the plaintiff's premises liability action against it. Furthermore, the defendant failed to show that it had no interest in the premises at the time the ladder at issue was constructed because the evidence showed that it was constructed in 1987, and the lease between the defendant and the plaintiff's employer was executed in 1992.

Damage Award Doubled Due to Unfair, Deceptive Practices By Landlord

A tenant's jury award may be doubled where the landlord engaged in unfair and deceptive practices; an award of attorneys' fees may also be appropriate. Plastics Color & Com-pounding, Inc. v. Henry W. Coz et al, Opinion No. 92199, Docket Number: 99-1152B, Superior Court of Massa-chusetts, Worcester, Feb. 10, 2006.

In 1959, Coz founded Coz Plastics and operated the business on the subject premises, which he owned. In 1968 Coz sold Coz Plastics to Allied Products but retained ownership of the building and a position as CEO. In 1997, PCC purchased Coz from Allied and assumed Allied's lease to the subject premises. Thereafter, disputes arose between PCC and Coz. Coz, as landlord, failed to maintain the subject premises properly according to the terms of the lease, including failing to replace a plumbing tower, closing up windows with brick walls, and dismantling a fire escape. PCC argued that Coz's acts were deliberate and intended to favor the second largest occupier of the subject premises, a company called Polyfoam, which was owned by Coz and his son. In 1999, PCC discovered that Coz was charging PCC 100% of the cost of the utilities of the entire premises, rather than the 65% utilized by PCC as stated in the lease. PCC vacated the premises in November 1999 and ceased paying rent even though its lease with Coz ran through December 2000. PCC then commenced an action against Coz and filed a 93A claim (claiming unfair and deceptive practices by Coz), seeking relocation costs and damages.

After a jury trial, PCC was awarded damages of $850,000. Following the verdict, the trial court found that PCC had established unfair and deceptive practices by Coz under 93A and doubled the damages award against Coz. It further ordered Coz to pay PCC's attorneys' fees. The court held that Coz exhibited bad faith in its actions on the subject premises. Moreover, those practices were designed to benefit Coz's own company, Polyfoam.

Owner of Leased Premises May Be Liable in Personal Injury Litigation

The legal relationship between the owner and the premises is not necessarily severed completely once the owner leases the premises; the owner may be liable for injuries that subsequently occur on the premises. Russ v. Wollheim, Case No. 2D04-2900, Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, Dec. 21, 2005.

The plaintiff sustained injuries while descending a ladder located on his employer's premises, a building owned by the defendant. The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant, claiming the defendant was negligent per se for constructing the ladder, as well as a stairwell and a floor, in violation of the county building code, that the defendant created a dangerous condition, and that the defendant breached its duty to warn the plaintiff of the dangerous condition. The defendant argued that it was merely the owner of the building occupied by the plaintiff's employer, and that it had surrendered complete possession and control over the premises to the plaintiff's employer.

The district court awarded summary judgment to the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded the matter. It held that the legal relationship between the owner and the premises is not necessarily completely severed once the owner leases the premises to a third party. It held that the extent of responsibility of an owner will depend upon the extent to which the owner maintains a possessory interest or control over premises that contain a defect alleged to have been the proximate cause of injuries suffered by a plaintiff.

Here, the appellate court considered that the lease between the defendant and the plaintiff's employer allowed the defendant to alter, add to, or improve the premises. Thus, the landlord retained a possessory interest or control over the very activity the plaintiff alleged resulted in his injuries. Consequently, as a matter of law, the landlord was not entitled to summary judgment in the plaintiff's premises liability action against it. Furthermore, the defendant failed to show that it had no interest in the premises at the time the ladder at issue was constructed because the evidence showed that it was constructed in 1987, and the lease between the defendant and the plaintiff's employer was executed in 1992.

Damage Award Doubled Due to Unfair, Deceptive Practices By Landlord

A tenant's jury award may be doubled where the landlord engaged in unfair and deceptive practices; an award of attorneys' fees may also be appropriate. Plastics Color & Com-pounding, Inc. v. Henry W. Coz et al, Opinion No. 92199, Docket Number: 99-1152B, Superior Court of Massa-chusetts, Worcester, Feb. 10, 2006.

In 1959, Coz founded Coz Plastics and operated the business on the subject premises, which he owned. In 1968 Coz sold Coz Plastics to Allied Products but retained ownership of the building and a position as CEO. In 1997, PCC purchased Coz from Allied and assumed Allied's lease to the subject premises. Thereafter, disputes arose between PCC and Coz. Coz, as landlord, failed to maintain the subject premises properly according to the terms of the lease, including failing to replace a plumbing tower, closing up windows with brick walls, and dismantling a fire escape. PCC argued that Coz's acts were deliberate and intended to favor the second largest occupier of the subject premises, a company called Polyfoam, which was owned by Coz and his son. In 1999, PCC discovered that Coz was charging PCC 100% of the cost of the utilities of the entire premises, rather than the 65% utilized by PCC as stated in the lease. PCC vacated the premises in November 1999 and ceased paying rent even though its lease with Coz ran through December 2000. PCC then commenced an action against Coz and filed a 93A claim (claiming unfair and deceptive practices by Coz), seeking relocation costs and damages.

After a jury trial, PCC was awarded damages of $850,000. Following the verdict, the trial court found that PCC had established unfair and deceptive practices by Coz under 93A and doubled the damages award against Coz. It further ordered Coz to pay PCC's attorneys' fees. The court held that Coz exhibited bad faith in its actions on the subject premises. Moreover, those practices were designed to benefit Coz's own company, Polyfoam.