The Leasing Hotline

No Duty to Protect Against Arsonist

There is no duty to protect third parties from uninvited intruders. Travelers Property Casualty v. Vernadette Pratt et al., No. 41,387-CW, Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, Sept. 27, 2006.

Pratt and the Costanzas entered into an oral lease for space where Pratt operated a restaurant. The restaurant shared a common wall with the adjacent store, a men's clothing store owned by Miletello. An arsonist started a fire in the restaurant, causing extensive damage to both the restaurant and the clothing store. Both Miletello and the Costanzas were insured by Travelers Property Casualty Company under separate policies. Travelers paid its insured's losses and filed a subrogation action against Pratt and her insurer, claiming the sole and proximate cause of the fire was Pratt's negligence in failing to secure the premises adequately.

Pratt and her insurer moved for summary judgment, arguing that Pratt owed no duty either to the Costanzas or to Miletello to protect from the criminal acts of an unknown third person, which were not reasonably anticipated. They further argued that Travelers could not demonstrate that Pratt was the cause of the fire by failing to secure the premises, or that she had any reason to anticipate that someone would break into the premises to commit arson. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, holding that issues of fact surrounding how the intruder entered the building precluded summary judgment. Pratt appealed. The appellate court reversed and granted summary judgment to Pratt. It held that Pratt had no duty to protect either the Constanzas or Miletetto from the acts of an intruder. It held that the risk of arson was not foreseeable under the facts presented. Although prior crimes had occurred, none were related to arson and were merely minor break-ins involving theft of cigarettes or convenience items. To require a business owner to engage in more than the customary security measures would impose an unreasonable and impossible duty to protect against all intruders, whether foreseeable or not.

No Duty to Protect Against Arsonist

There is no duty to protect third parties from uninvited intruders. Travelers Property Casualty v. Vernadette Pratt et al., No. 41,387-CW, Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, Sept. 27, 2006.

Pratt and the Costanzas entered into an oral lease for space where Pratt operated a restaurant. The restaurant shared a common wall with the adjacent store, a men's clothing store owned by Miletello. An arsonist started a fire in the restaurant, causing extensive damage to both the restaurant and the clothing store. Both Miletello and the Costanzas were insured by Travelers Property Casualty Company under separate policies. Travelers paid its insured's losses and filed a subrogation action against Pratt and her insurer, claiming the sole and proximate cause of the fire was Pratt's negligence in failing to secure the premises adequately.

Pratt and her insurer moved for summary judgment, arguing that Pratt owed no duty either to the Costanzas or to Miletello to protect from the criminal acts of an unknown third person, which were not reasonably anticipated. They further argued that Travelers could not demonstrate that Pratt was the cause of the fire by failing to secure the premises, or that she had any reason to anticipate that someone would break into the premises to commit arson. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, holding that issues of fact surrounding how the intruder entered the building precluded summary judgment. Pratt appealed. The appellate court reversed and granted summary judgment to Pratt. It held that Pratt had no duty to protect either the Constanzas or Miletetto from the acts of an intruder. It held that the risk of arson was not foreseeable under the facts presented. Although prior crimes had occurred, none were related to arson and were merely minor break-ins involving theft of cigarettes or convenience items. To require a business owner to engage in more than the customary security measures would impose an unreasonable and impossible duty to protect against all intruders, whether foreseeable or not.