On October 2, 2015, in Sears, Roebuck & Co v. 69th Street Retail Mall, L.P, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a tenant was constructively evicted from the premises as a result of the cumulative effect of its landlord's ongoing negligence ( (October 2, 2015)).

Under a lease with a previous landlord, Sears had operated its department store at the same shopping center since 1988. In 2005, the 69th Street Retail Mall, L.P. acquired the property. In February 2006, Sears declined an offer from the landlord to buy out the lease.

After declining the buyout, Sears claimed that the maintenance and attention to the property declined dramatically, making the premises insufficient for the purposes contained in the lease. The condition of the property included:

On May 1, 2009, Sears issued a series of notices of default to the landlord and provided notice of its intent to engage in self-help remedies under the lease. Sears was told that it would be in default if it resorted to self-help. For the next three years, Sears alleges that the landlord tried to force it out of the premises by never making repairs, and that the deterioration of the premises led to the closing of the store. In May 2012, Sears vacated the premises.

The landlord countered that Sears was obligated to pay rent for the balance of its lease term because the store closed because of the economic downturn of the Sears Corporation and not because of the landlord's constructive eviction.

The trial court found that the landlord had breached the lease by constructively evicting Sears, which suspended Sears' obligation to pay rent. The landlord appealed.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania evaluated the instances of landlord interference on a cumulative basis to determine whether the tenant was constructively evicted. The court held that to qualify as constructive eviction, the landlord's actions must:

The court dismissed the landlord's argument that the lease itself did not explicitly state that Sears could terminate the lease if the landlord failed to provide repairs. The court noted that the landlord did not point to any quoted language from the actual lease to support its argument and that regardless, the landlord breached various covenants expressly provided for in the lease.

Of particular note to commercial tenants, the court found that the commercial attractiveness of a business should be taken into consideration in a construcive eviction inquiry. In this case, the landlord's ongoing neglect of the premises made the business less attractive to consumers.

The superior court upheld the trial court's ruling.

This decision has broad implications for commercial landlords and tenants. Landlords must be cognizant of the cumulative effect of their actions on the premises, including the impact to a business's commercial attractiveness. This should buoy commercial tenants, as it affords them greater rights and holds their landlords to a high standard of care.