When the rental agreement was entered, there was no evidence that the storage facility intended stop using the cameras in the future. Additionally, the court found that when the facility’s surveillance cameras were rendered inoperable due to an ongoing renovation, the operator did not have a duty to inform the tenants of such and, therefore, the tenant could not prevail on a separate claim of deceit against it.
Dilbeck v. Yates, Court of Appeals, Georgia, 1992
In this case, a tenant whose property was stolen sued the facility for the loss. His property was taken during a break-in that left no signs of forced entry. The tenant testified that he questioned the manager about prior break-ins before leasing the space. The manager told him no one had ever broken into any of the units. Unbeknownst to the tenant, there had actually been numerous incidents.
The tenant claimed the facility had committed fraud based on misrepresentations as to the occurrence of prior break‑ins. He argued that had he known the truth, he would never have rented the space. Although the facility had a very strong lease protecting it from liability for such a loss, the court held the tenant's agreement was void due to the manager's false statement. The court ruled in favor of the tenant and against the facility for the value of the stolen goods.
What You Should Do
So what are the lessons learned from these three cases? First, the facility’s rental agreement should include provisions confirming the tenant maintains care, custody and control of the stored property, no bailment is intended, and the tenant is responsible for having insurance for his stored property. There should also be a provision in the lease establishing a limit to the value of stored goods, which cannot be increased unless the tenant has proof of insurance for the higher value. Finally, there should be language stating facility does not guarantee the safety or security of the stored goods, and it cannot be held liable in the event that alarms, gate systems or camera systems fail or malfunction. If cameras are employed, proper signage should make it clear that although activity is recorded, the cameras are not being monitored.
Next, a facility operator must be honest in answering questions posed by prospective and current tenants. For example, if a customer asks if there's ever been a fire, theft or flood at the property, the operator must answer honestly. He is allowed to say, however, what efforts, if any, have been made to prevent similar occurrences in the future. As we can see from the cases above, if an operator acts with deceit, the court can choose to invalidate his defenses contained in the lease.
Certainly, nothing can prevent a tenant from suing a facility for loss or damage to his goods. However, to enhance a facility's defense to such claims, it’s becoming increasingly important for operators to be clearer about the services they provide. As shown by these court cases, marketing is essential to self-storage success, but if not handled carefully and honestly, it can also be the reason for a facility’s failure.
Scott Zucker is a partner in the law firm of Weissmann & Zucker P.C. in Atlanta, where he specializes in business litigation with an emphasis on real estate, landlord-tenant and construction law. Zucker is a frequent lecturer at national conventions, author of “Legal Topics in Self-Storage: A Sourcebook for Owners and Managers,” and a partner in the Self-Storage Legal Network, a subscription-based legal services for self-storage owners and managers. To reach him, call 404.364.4626; e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org.