A “takeaway” from Prezzo

Prezzo held a sub-lease of a ground floor and basement restaurant. In the lease, Prezzo’s landlord covenanted to “insure the premises in accordance with its obligations” as tenant under a head lease of the entire building. The head lease obliged Prezzo’s landlord to insure the whole building. Prezzo was obliged to maintain and repair the restaurant premises “except for the damage caused by such of the insured risks as the landlord is obliged to insure against” and to pay a contribution towards the landlord’s cost of the insurance premium.

A fire at the restaurant damaged both the restaurant and the rest of the building. This was presumably the fault of Prezzo. The insurer paid out insurance money to the landlord under its insurance policy but then sought to claim for all its losses against Prezzo by way of subrogation – in other words, standing in the shoes of the landlord to claim against Prezzo.

Subrogation : The principle of subrogation allows an insurer to be placed in the position of the insured and to benefit from all of the rights and remedies the insured may have against a third party. However, because a landlord usually insures premises at the tenant’s expense, it normally means that the insurance is regarded as benefitting both the landlord and the tenant, and this in turn usually prevents a landlord’s insurers from subrogating to claims the landlord may have against the tenant in respect of insured damage.

Decision : In this case, the court decided that the insurer was unable to subrogate to the landlord’s claims in respect of losses concerning the tenant’s restaurant premises. This was because in the lease, the landlord had agreed to insure the restaurant premises and therefore impliedly agreed that the insurance was for the tenant’s benefit and so there would be no subrogation. However, alarmingly for Prezzo, the court decided that the landlord could subrogate in relation to its claims in respect of losses to the rest of the building. This was because the landlord had not agreed with the tenant to insure the whole of the building. Even though it did insure the rest of the building, it was not regarded as being for the tenant’s benefit and so the landlord could subrogate.

The “takeaways” for tenants are:

  • A tenant should ensure that the landlord is obliged to insure the whole of the building, in respect of which the tenant’s premises form only part, and not just the tenant’s premises; and
  • A tenant should ask the landlord to obtain evidence of a waiver by its insurers of subrogation rights with regard to claims against tenants.

Tenants also have a wider interest in making sure that the building is fully covered. Access and essential services to the premises may be obtained over other parts of the building. It is essential that those parts are agreed to be covered by the landlord so that access and services can be reinstated where insured damage occurs.

The principle that an insurer may not bring proceedings against a third party by way of subrogation where the insured has previously agreed, either expressly or by implication, with the third party that the insurance would exist for the benefit of that party was laid down in a case called Mark Rowlands Limited v Berni Inns Limited [1986]. Most typical lease covenants, whereby the landlord insures the building and the tenant pays the premium cost, should automatically achieve this but best practice for a tenant is to ensure that the landlord is obliged to use all reasonable endeavours to obtain from the insurers evidence of a waiver of subrogation rights with regard to tenants.

The case is Prezzo Limited v Highpoint Estates Limited [2018].


This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.


Roderick Campbell

Partner, Head of Commercial Property

Roderick has specialised in property law for 30 years. He trained with Hart Brown, qualifying in 1985 and became a Partner in 1990. He specialises...

Partner, Head of Commercial Property

Roderick Campbell

Roderick has specialised in property law for 30 years. He trained with Hart Brown, qualifying in 1985 and became a Partner in 1990.

He specialises in all aspects of non-contentious commercial property work including freehold and leasehold acquisitions and disposals; residential development work; options; conditional contracts, development agreements and land promotion agreements. He acts for a broad range of clients including property companies, developers, owner/occupiers and SMEs.

Hart Brown is recognised in the Legal 500 for real estate work in the South East and the entry states “Roderick Campbell provides “practical and pragmatic advice” and is a “first class” communicator.”

In 2008 he published a book on “Methods of Securing Development Land Overage”. He also holds an LLM Masters Degree in Advanced Commercial Property Law with distinction.

He is a member of the Law Society Property Group and LawNet Commercial Property Group.

His most memorable case was acting for a landowner on the grant of an Option Agreement concerning an M25 service area which lasted for some 12 years between exchange and completion!

Head Office

Resolution House
Walnut Tree Close

Your Local Office

Guildford - 01483 887766
Cobham - 01932 576789
Cranleigh - 01483 887515
Godalming - 01483 887766
Woking - 01483 887766

Hart Brown Solicitors is the trading name of Hart Brown LLP registered in England and Wales No. OC 425835 whose registered office is Resolution House, Riverview, Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, GU1 4UX and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) No. 658593. Members: N Maud, T Pearce, R Campbell, L Harrhy and J Lamont, Partners: D Beswick, J Crosby, J Jupp, T Mandelli, V McMurtrie, E Moore, S Powell, G Sanders and L Stolworthy.

Any reference to a partner in relation to Hart Brown LLP means a member or an employee with the title of Partner of Hart Brown LLP.

© Copyright Hart Brown LLP 2021 - All Rights Reserved. VAT registration no. 211372705