On February $15,2019,$ Cheryl Carter and her husband, George, drove to the Starbucks at Leased Premises that is the subject of the Lease. The night before there was $$an icy rain.$$ The Carters observed a woman, Libby Schwartz, lying in the middle of the parking lot. The Carters stopped their car and George carried Schwartz to the back door of the Starbucks. As she got out of her car, Cheryl Carter was concerned about her ability to walk across the parking lot due to the ice. Cheryl Carter went inside the Starbucks to where Schwartz and her husband were. Schwartz asked Cheryl Carter to retrieve Schwartz's purse from her car, because it contained her medical information. In trying to reach Schwartz's car, Cheryl Carter slipped and fell in the area where Schwartz's car was located and was injured quite severely. She then sued the Landlord and the Tenant for her injuries.

Starbucks wants the Landlord to defend and indemnify it for Carter$$s lawsuit. In the litigation, the following facts and testimony are discovered via depositions and interrogatories. The parties do not dispute that, since $2012,$ Starbucks has paid a contractor to remove snow from the parking lot at the Leased Premises. Additionally, David Smith, Starbucks' facility manager, testified in his deposition that Starbucks paid for snow removal solely because it viewed the Landlord as failing to live up to its obligations under the Lease. However, Kevin Jones, who worked for Smith and had the responsibility of interpreting leases, stated in an email that snow removal was not included in the landlord's responsibilities and Starbucks had to arrange for snow removal.

Additionally, Smith testified that the Landlord had originally arranged for snow and ice removal and Starbucks did $$nothing$$ but then Landlord stopped arranging for snow and ice removal. In contrast, the Landlord$$s vice president testified at his deposition that he never made arrangements for snow removal.

Based on the contract, these facts, and$/$or the law, can you reach a conclusion about whether Starbucks can require the Landlord to defend and indemnify it for Carter$$s lawsuit?