Case Decisions Support Self-Storage Rental Agreements

Some recent lower court decisions have been released which demonstrate support for the approach many operators take in the self-storage industry utilizing limitation of value provisions and dispute time limitation provisions.

As most operators know, the national Self Storage Association (with the support of state industry associations) has spent over a decade creating legislation to incorporate statutory support for the right of operators to enforce their tenant’s declaration as to the maximum value of property stored in their rented units. Absent such a declared maximum value provision in the lease, operators subject themselves to unknown claims arising from loss or damage to property stored in their tenant’s units that are otherwise under the care, custody, and control of the renting tenant.

Recently in New York, a trial court decision was upheld on appeal in the case of Heins v. Public Storage (2025), where the Court upheld the $5,000 limitation of value declaration found in the tenant’s rental agreement. This was a clear victory for storage operators in New York who rely on this entitlement under the lien law. Further, and possibly supportive of future defenses for operators, the court limited the plaintiff’s claims for wrongful lien sale only to the rights contained within the statutory process. In New York, a tenant has ten days to object to a lien claim before the sale can proceed. In this case, the court found that the tenant’s failure to object during that ten-day period created a defense as to claims for a wrongful sale arising from the enforcement of the lien.

A sample limitation of value provision may read as follows:

LIMITATION OF VALUE: Occupant agrees not to store property with a total value in excess of $5,000 without the written permission of the Operator. If such written permission is not obtained, the value of Occupant’s property shall be deemed not to exceed $5,000. Nothing herein shall constitute any agreement or admission by Operator that Occupant’s stored property has any value, nor shall anything alter the release of Operator’s liability set forth below.‌

Another successful case for operators was heard in California this past year. In Small v. Public Storage (2025), the Superior Court declared that the rental agreement’s one year time limitation to bring a claim was enforceable against a tenant who had asserted her claim against the facility over a year after the deadline. More specifically in this case, the tenant was asserting a slip and fall accident and alleged that Public Storage was aware of the dangerous condition. However, the tenant waited almost two years before filing her action for her injuries. The Court found that the time limitation expressed in the lease to bring an action against the operator (even though it was a period of time less than the statutory period), was not against public policy, as long as the contractual period was “reasonable”.

A sample time limitation in a storage contract may look like the following:

TIME TO FILE SUIT: Occupant agrees to file any lawsuit or other action against the Owner, Owner’s agents or employees within one year of the event that caused the loss of or damage to Occupant’s stored property, bodily injury or any other liability.

These case decisions amplify the importance that operators utilize updated rental agreements to create clear rights and obligations of the operator and the occupant. State statutes are rapidly changing, but so are the case decisions that interpret those laws. It is extremely important for storage operators to track important decisions like these to validate their transactional operations and business practices as well as the management of their defense to tenant claims and legal actions.

-

Scott Zucker is a partner in the law firm of Weissmann Zucker Euster + Katz P.C. in Atlanta, GA. Scott specializes in business litigation with an emphasis on real estate, landlord-tenant and construction law. For more visit www.wzlegal.com.