A landlord’s tenant and the tenant’s guests smoked methamphetamine in the rental unit. Testing found significant levels of methamphetamine residue in the unit and HVAC system. The landlord filed a claim for the resulting remediation, which Farmers denied under a Contaminants exclusion. The landlord then filed suit, asserting the loss was covered because it was caused by vandalism. natlawreview.com/article/orego

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

Follow

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

Sign in to participate in the conversation

CounterSocial is the first Social Network Platform to take a zero-tolerance stance to hostile nations, bot accounts and trolls who are weaponizing OUR social media platforms and freedoms to engage in influence operations against us. And we're here to counter it.