Present: All the Justices
LANDMARK HHH, LLC
OPINION BY
v. Record No. 072365 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR.
January 16, 2009
GI HWA PARK
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
R. Terrence Ney, Judge
In this appeal, we consider whether the circuit court
correctly determined that under a lease for commercial real
estate the landlord was liable for contract damages for the
loss sustained by the tenant when the roof of the leased
premises leaked during a rainstorm, inundating the leased
premises and causing substantial damage to the tenant’s
inventory. We further consider whether the court erred in
failing to hold that the provisions of the lease requiring the
tenant to maintain hazard insurance and hold the landlord
harmless for any insured losses barred the tenant from seeking
to obtain damages for all the losses sustained.
BACKGROUND
This case was tried by the circuit court, sitting without
a jury. Upon appellate review, the court’s judgment is
entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict and will not be
set aside unless it appears from the evidence that the
judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.
Code § 8.01-680; Hickson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 383, 387,
520 S.E.2d 643, 645 (1999). Accordingly, we recite the facts
in this case in the light most favorable to the tenant, the
party in whose favor the circuit court rendered its judgment.
Government Micro Res., Inc. v. Jackson, 271 Va. 29, 35, 624
S.E.2d 63, 66 (2006).
In May 1998, Gi Hwa Park entered into a commercial lease
with Landmark HHH, LLC (Landmark) for a retail space located
in the Plaza at Landmark, a shopping center in Fairfax County.
Park intended to operate a clothing store called The Four
Seasons in the leased space, specializing in high-end imported
men’s suits and related accessories. As relevant to this
appeal, the lease contained the following provisions:
16(b) Tenant, at its sole cost and expense, shall be
responsible for providing a policy of fire and
extended coverage insurance, insuring Tenant’s
inventory, . . . and all other contents in the
Premises . . . .
25(a) Landlord shall endeavor to keep the foundation,
roof, and the outer walls . . . of the Premises in
good repair and make such repairs to the foundation,
roof and outer walls as are necessary following
Landlord’s knowledge of the necessity of said repairs
. . . .
37(c) Landlord and Tenant hereby release the other
from any and all liability or responsibility to the
other or anyone claiming through or under them, by way
of subrogation or otherwise, from any loss or damage
to property caused by fire or any other perils insured
under policies of insurance covering such property
(but only to the extent of the insurance proceeds
payable under such policies), even if such loss or
damage is attributable to the fault or negligence of
2
the other party, or anyone for whom such party may be
responsible.
Within three weeks of Park’s opening of The Four Seasons
and continuing through September 2005, leaks in the roof
allowed water to flow into the store, damaging the ceiling and
causing wet spots throughout the store. The leaks would occur
several times during the year, especially when precipitation
was heavy. Tony Park, Park’s son and manager of The Four
Seasons, contacted Landmark’s property manager multiple times
concerning the leaks. Landmark took various remedial steps to
attempt to repair the damage to the interior of the store and
to repair the roof.
Between September 2005 and February 2006, in response to
complaints from Park and other tenants, Landmark undertook to
replace the entire roof of the shopping center. Landmark
hired Waterproofing Consulting Company, Inc. (WCC) to design
and monitor the installation of a new roof. On WCC’s
recommendation, Landmark contracted with Potteiger-Raintree,
Inc. to perform the actual installation. Despite the addition
of the new roof, water continued to leak into The Four
Seasons, and Tony Park again reported this fact to Landmark,
which referred the matter to WCC. WCC and Potteiger-Raintree
took corrective measures to connect a drain and repair
3
improperly installed flashing, but intermittent leaks
continued to occur.
On the morning of June 26, 2006, following a night of
record rainfall in Northern Virginia, Tony Park arrived at The
Four Seasons and immediately noticed an “unbearable stench,”
and, after turning on the lights, discovered that the entire
store had been flooded. The ceiling tiles had fallen in, and
there was substantial water damage to the store’s inventory.
Inspectors from Fairfax County visited the store the following
day, June 27, 2006, and informed Tony Park that because of the
store’s condition, he would have to close the business
temporarily.
Shortly after the flooding, extensive repairs were made
to The Four Seasons. Even after the repairs were completed, a
bad odor remained in the store and much of the inventory was
not recoverable despite efforts to clean it. Although The
Four Seasons briefly re-opened in the late summer and early
fall of 2006, the store was closed permanently in November
2006.
In a complaint filed October 16, 2006 in the Circuit
Court of Fairfax County, Park sought to recover damages from
Landmark for breach of its lease obligation to provide a
serviceable roof and to provide her with the quiet enjoyment
4
of the leased premises. Park asked for $550,000 in
compensatory damages, principally for the lost inventory.
At trial, in addition to evidence consistent with the
above-recited facts, Park presented testimony from Kyong Ho
Kim, a commercial roof repair expert, who opined that the new
roof had been improperly installed. Kim testified that there
were gaps in the cap flashing where the flashing connected
with one of the roof’s expansion joints; this gap allowed
water to flow underneath the roofing surface and into the
building. Furthermore, Kim testified that the roof contained
an insufficient number of drains to accommodate the influx of
water coming from a higher, larger adjoining roof of a
department store in the shopping center.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the circuit court held
that section 25(a) of the parties’ lease required Landmark to
keep the roof in good repair, regardless of any notice of
defects. Thus, despite the fact that Landmark had contended
that it did not have sufficient notice that the newly
installed roof would fail, the court ruled that the failure of
the roof constituted a breach of Landmark’s duties under the
lease. The court further held that the provision in section
16(b) of the lease requiring Park to maintain insurance on
inventory and the limitation of liability provision in section
37(c) did not insulate Landmark from being subject to a claim
5
for breach of the lease. The court noted that the lease had
been drafted by Landmark and, thus, it was Landmark’s burden
to show that the lease was intended to make Park solely
responsible for any property loss. In the court’s view, no
such intention was found in the express language of the lease.
The court awarded Park $298,762.56 in damages consisting of
$282,618.00 for two-thirds of the value of the lost inventory,
$11,014.50 for certain incidental expenses incurred in
attempting to mitigate damages, and $5,130.06 as a return on
the security deposit on the leasehold.
DISCUSSION
A lease is a contract and “‘when the terms of a contract
are clear and unambiguous, a court must give them their plain
meaning.’” Levisa Coal Co. v. Consolidation Coal Co., 276 Va.
44, 57, 662 S.E.2d 44, 51 (2008) (quoting Pocahontas Mining
L.L.C. v. Jewell Ridge Coal Corp., 263 Va. 169, 173, 556
S.E.2d 769, 771 (2002)). “On appeal, we review a trial
court’s interpretation of a lease under a de novo standard.”
Id. We do not accord any deference to the circuit court’s
interpretation of the lease “because we are afforded the same
opportunity as the circuit court to interpret the terms of the
parties’ contract.” Pocahontas Mining L.L.C. v. CNX Gas Co.,
LLC, 276 Va. 346, 352, 666 S.E.2d 527, 531 (2008).
6
Landmark first contends that the circuit court erred when
it found Landmark breached the lease by failing to provide a
leak-free roof. According to Landmark, the lease required
Park or another tenant to give Landmark notice of a defect in
the new roof and that Landmark be given an opportunity to
remedy the defect before it would be in breach of the lease.
Landmark contends that any notice it had of defects with the
new roof was not sufficient to impose liability upon it
because it took reasonable steps to have the contractor and
subcontractor remedy the defects, and it had no notice that
the roof would fail entirely. We disagree.
Landmark’s contention places too narrow a construction on
section 25(a) of the lease. That provision requires Landmark
to keep the roof “in good repair” at all times during the
period of the lease. The further requirement that Landmark
“make such repairs . . . as are necessary following
[Landmark’s] knowledge of the necessity of said repairs” is
not a limitation on the principal duty to provide a
serviceable, leak-free roof. The duty to keep the roof in
good repair would be effectively negated if necessary repairs
to the roof were only required when Landmark was notified by a
tenant of defects in the roof.
Moreover, we do not agree with Landmark’s contention that
by undertaking to replace the roof it could, in effect, shield
7
itself from the responsibility of providing a serviceable roof
unless and until a tenant gave notice that the new roof was
defective. To the contrary, maintenance of the roof was in
the exclusive control of Landmark, and when it undertook to
replace the roof as part of its responsibility to Park and the
other tenants in the shopping center, Landmark bore the sole
responsibility to assure that the new roof would be “in good
repair” as required by the lease terms. 1
Finally, Landmark asserts that when read together
sections 16(b) and 37(c) evince an intention of the parties to
absolve each other of liability for any loss or damage to
1
We do not address Landmark’s assertion that Park might
have sought to recover from WCC or Potteiger-Raintree. Even
assuming that Park might have maintained an action against the
contractors as a third-party beneficiary of the contracts with
Landmark, she was not required to do so, nor would any
potential liability of the contractors absolve Landmark of its
duties under the lease. We also will not consider Landmark’s
assignment of error contending that the circuit court erred
“by imputing the arguable negligence of the landlord’s
independent contractors to the landlord.” In support of this
argument, Landmark relies exclusively on cases arising in tort
against landlords for personal injuries to tenants or invitees
as the result of the negligence of third-party contractors.
Park’s complaint was for breach of the lease, thus negligence
was not an issue in the case. Moreover, the record does not
support the contention that the court’s judgment was premised
on a finding of negligence in the installation of the roof.
Rather, the court found that the failure of the roof, whether
by reason of its negligent installation or some other cause,
was a breach of Landmark’s lease obligation to maintain the
roof.
8
property, and that the circuit court ignored these provisions
by allowing Park to maintain this suit. Again, we disagree.
Section 16(b) of the lease required Park to maintain
insurance on her inventory, which she did. The language of
this section, however, does not limit either party’s ability
to bring suit against the other for violations of the lease.
Similarly, section 37(c) required Park to absolve Landmark
from any losses she sustained “to the extent of the insurance
proceeds payable” on such losses. The plain language of this
section only prohibits Park from obtaining a double recovery
on a loss sustained and requires Park to release Landmark from
any claim of subrogation by her insurer. 2
We agree with the circuit court that had Landmark, as the
drafter of the lease, desired to be exempt from all liability
for losses sustained by Park as the result of the common
hazards to which the property would be subject, it was
required to express the exemption in the plain language of the
lease. See e.g. Nextel WIP Lease Corp. v. Saunders, 276 Va.
509, 516, 666 S.E.2d 317, 321 (2008) (quoting Parrish v.
2
During oral argument of this appeal, Park’s counsel
averred that the judgment included a credit for proceeds from
the insurance on the inventory. Application of this credit is
not reflected in the final order. However, Landmark has not
challenged the amount of the judgment by an assignment of
error and, therefore, we are not concerned in this appeal with
whether such a credit was owed and applied.
9
Robertson, 195 Va. 794, 800, 80 S.E.2d 407, 410 (1954))
(recognizing the principle that a landlord has “the power of
providing expressly in his favor” when drafting a lease).
Indeed, a further provision of the lease expressly limited
Landmark’s liability, stating that “[i]n no event shall
Landlord be liable to Tenant for loss of business or
consequential damages.” Landmark is, in effect, asking the
Court to find implicit in the lease a term that it could have
expressly included, but failed to do so. However, when
interpreting a contract, we construe it as written and will
not add terms the parties themselves did not include. TM
Delmarva Power, L.L.C. v. NCP of Virginia, L.L.C., 263 Va.
116, 119, 557 S.E.2d 199, 200 (2002).
Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not err
in holding that Landmark’s failure to provide a serviceable,
leak-free roof constituted a breach of its lease with Park and
that the lease did not absolve Landmark from liability for the
damage sustained by Park with respect to her inventory.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit
court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
10