Commercial owners should be aware of a recent California case involving a waiver clause in a commercial lease. In Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal. About 4th 1057, the tenant claimed that the landlord had neglected a mold problem on the property. The lessor submitted that, even if there had been negligence, the lessor was protected by (1) the obligation to implement, that the tenant maintained insurance covering the losses and (2) a discharge clause in the tenancy agreement. The lease clause is: „The lessor is not liable for injury or damage to the person or goods, goods, property or other property of the tenant… If such damage or injury is caused by fire, steam, electricity, gas, water or rain or rupture, obstruction, obstruction or other defects of pipes, sprinklers, wires, appliances, sanitary facilities, air conditioning or lighting or other causes, whether these injuries or damage are due to conditions related to the premises or other parts of the building to which the premises belong. , other sources or locations, and whether the cause of such damage or injury or the means of repair are accessible or not… Regardless of the landlord`s negligence or breach of the tenancy agreement, the lessor is in no way liable for the damage suffered by the tenant or for the loss of income or the resulting profits.“ Although the court did not explicitly identify the lease, it is the language of paragraph 8.8 of the American Industrial Real Estate rental forms. After the Tenant terminated the tenancy agreement under the express guarantee of the habitability clause, she filed a complaint of bias against the lessor, in which she argued, among other things, that the lessor had breached its duty of due diligence by failing to correct the water infiltration. The landlord then made an interim objection in the nature of a demerger and argued that it owed no legal duty to the tenant and that the discharge clause of the tenancy agreement prohibited the tenant`s claim. In Reitmeyer, the tenant was injured after falling from a faulty back lobby and sued the landlord for negligence.

The Tenant stated in her complaint that the landlord was aware of the defect and that he had promised to repair the veranda. Depending on the owner`s commitment to repair the veranda, the tenant executed the lease and lived in the rented premises. The manager`s responsibility was also addressed in this case. The lease did not explicitly refer to a debt abandonment against the property manager. As a result, the court decided that the tenancy agreement did not protect the building manager from tenant claims. However, as the manager was not a party to the lease, the tenant was unable to sue the manager for breach of the lease. The laws of the landlord and tenant are different from state to state.