## Facts

- Jose R. Masvidal owned a residential property leased to Aleli Loo; State Farm Florida Insurance Company issued Masvidal a rental dwelling insurance policy covering the property.
- The lease provided that if the property was damaged by fire not caused by Loo’s negligence, Masvidal would repair the damage.
- A fire occurred during the lease term, and State Farm paid Masvidal for the loss.
- As Masvidal’s subrogee, State Farm sued Loo (and a co-tenant, Jorge Cava) alleging Loo’s negligence caused the fire and seeking to recover the amounts paid.
- Cava did not appeal; a default was entered against him.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Florida law, a landlord’s property insurer may pursue subrogation against a tenant for fire damage allegedly caused by the tenant’s negligence.
2. Whether a tenant is automatically treated as an implied co-insured under the landlord’s policy, barring subrogation absent an express lease provision to the contrary.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the final summary judgment entered for Loo and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court rejected an automatic rule that a tenant is an implied co-insured under the landlord’s policy.
- Because the lease allocated responsibility for negligently caused fire damage to the tenant (by limiting the landlord’s repair obligation to fires not caused by the tenant’s negligence), the tenant was not treated as an insured for purposes of barring subrogation.
- Summary judgment based solely on the implied co-insured theory was improper; the subrogation claim could proceed, subject to proof of negligence and causation.

## Legal Principles

- After paying a covered loss, an insurer generally may pursue subrogation by standing in the insured’s shoes against the responsible third party.
- An insurer may not subrogate against its own insured for the same risk, even where the insured’s negligence caused the loss.
- In the landlord-tenant context, whether a tenant is protected from subrogation depends on the intent shown in the insurance policy and the lease, not on a categorical presumption that all tenants are co-insureds.
- Lease language allocating responsibility for tenant-caused damage supports treating the tenant as a third-party tortfeasor rather than as an insured for anti-subrogation purposes.

## Conclusion

The court held that Florida law does not treat a tenant as an automatic co-insured under a landlord’s property policy, and it permitted the landlord’s insurer to pursue subrogation against a tenant whose negligence allegedly caused a fire, where the lease reflected an intent to hold the tenant responsible for negligently caused fire damage.


State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Loo, 27 So. 3d 747 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2010)