fascinating. “Oregon Court of Appeals disagreed. “The word ‘vandalism’ is not defined but it is…generally defined to mean ‘willful or malicious destruction… of things…or of private property.’…no evidence was presented that the “tenant intended to cause damage to the dwelling...”
The landlord then argued the Contaminants exclusion didnt apply. The exclusion applies to the “release, discharge or dispersal of contaminants….” The Court of Appeals rejected the landlord’s argument.”
@Victor
@Armchaircouch In much the same manner that a hotel that has people that want to smoke stay in a "smoke" room. Otherwise, they'll get charged for the cleaning. Guessing that landlord can now rent dwelling to other meth addicts.../s
That’s stupid because people who do spray painting of things to make murals on property that they don’t own is considered vandalism, but they’re not trying to “destroy” the property. They’re just trying to put their art on it because they think it looks good.
@Victor