Say it Ain't So! Tortious Interference with a Sublease By a Master Landlord
A South Carolina appellate court recently affirmed a trial court's decision that a landlord had tortiously interfered with a sublease by terminating the master lease after a fire damaged the subject building and such landlord was liable to the subtenant for punitive damages.
September 27, 2021 at 11:04 AM
10 minute read
Landlord Tenant LawRecently, in Sea Island Food Grp., LLC v. Yaschik Dev. Co., Inc., a South Carolina appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision that: 1) a landlord had tortiously interfered with a sublease by terminating the master lease after a fire damaged the subject building; and 2) such landlord was liable to the subtenant for punitive damages. See, 433 S.C. 278, 857 S.E.2d 902 (Ct. App. 2021), reh'g denied (May 12, 2021).
In April 2013, a fire caused extensive damage to the building's second floor and roof, but less damage to other parts of the building. After such damage, the master tenant began repair and restoration work on the building. In May, 2013 the landlord entered into negotiations to sell the building to a neighboring property owner. Though the lease required the master tenant to carry $1 million in insurance, the master tenant advised the landlord in August, 2013 that the total cost of repairs could exceed $2.3 million. In September, the master tenant requested that the landlord approve the structural plans for the building's repair. The following week, the landlord notified the master tenant of its decision to terminate the lease. The lease provided for automatic termination in the event the premises were totally destroyed. The full lease provision reads as follows:
If premises are totally destroyed by fire or other casualty, this lease shall terminate as of the date of such destruction and rental shall be accounted for as between Landlord and Tenant as of that date. If premises are damaged but not wholly destroyed by fire or other casualty, rent shall abate in such proportion as use of premises has been lost to the Tenant. Landlord shall restore premises to substantially the same condition as prior to damage as speedily as practicable, whereupon full rental shall commence.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllState Appellate Court Orders New Trial After Judge Denies Rescheduling, Despite Counsel's Health Emergency
Yachts, Jets, Horses & Hooch: Specialized Commercial Leasing Models
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Trying a Case for Abu Ghraib Detainees Two Decades After Abuse
- 2The Distribution of Dangerous Products Via Online Marketplaces
- 3The Products Liability Case Against Tianeptine: The Deadly ‘Dietary Supplement’ Found at Your Local Store
- 4The Evolving Landscape of Joint and Several Liability in Pa.: A Post-'Spencer' Analysis
- 5A Deep Dive Into the Product-Line Exception in Pennsylvania
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250