CASE #$2$

An owner$/$general contractor hired a subcontractor to conduct plumbing work on a

housing project. The contract stated: $$Owner to carry fire, tornado, and other necessary

insurance.$$ During construction, the subcontractor$$s negligence resulted in a fire that

caused $$120,000$ in damages. When the owner sued the subcontractor to recover these

damages, the subcontractor said it should be covered by the owner$$s insurance. The court

noted that the owner had the right to insure its own property without the consent or

agreement of the subcontractor. Therefore, the only reasonable explanation for a contract

provision requiring the owner to carry insurance was to protect the subcontractor from risk

of the insured loss

Question

$($NOTE: Explain Your Answers in Detail.

Think Outside the box i$.$e$.$ subsequent damages, countersuits$)$

If you had decision making power over this case, how would you rule?