On March 28, 2025, a powerful 7.7-magnitude earthquake struck central Myanmar, sending tremors across northern Thailand and as far as Bangkok. The seismic event caused the collapse of a high-rise building under construction in the Thai capital and left residents in both urban and rural areas dealing with property damage, business disruption, and heightened anxiety around infrastructure safety. In the wake of this natural disaster, the focus has shifted to the adequacy of legal protections, particularly for tenants whose rights are often subordinate to those of property owners and developers.
As recovery efforts unfold, critical questions have emerged regarding liability for structural damage, the enforceability of insurance claims, and the extent of tenant rights under Thai law. This article examines key legal concepts governing landlord-tenant relationships, force majeure doctrines, and insurance litigation in the aftermath of the earthquake, as well as a look into areas where reform may be necessary.
Legal Obligations Under the Civil and Commercial Code
Lease agreements in Thailand are governed by Sections 537–571 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code (CCC). Section 546 places the obligation on the landlord to deliver and maintain the leased property in a condition fit for its intended use; while Section 552 requires tenants to promptly notify landlords of any damage or hazard requiring attention.
In the context of an earthquake, which are unusual in Thailand, these obligations become legally murky. If a rental property sustains damage to the point of being uninhabitable, tenants may seek to terminate the lease or request rent reductions under Section 567 of the CCC. This section allows for such remedies in cases of partial or total destruction of the property; however, when the damage stems from force majeure, liability for damages may be excluded.
This legal framework creates tension in situations where landlords attempt to shift the cost of repairs to tenants, despite the latter’s lack of control over structural issues. Following the recent eartquake, there have been anecdotal reports of landlords asking tenants to contribute to repair costs, a move that may violate the landlord’s statutory maintenance obligations and could invite legal challenge if not supported by contractual language.
Force Majeure, Tenant Rights, and Contractual Risk Allocation
Thai contract law recognizes the principle of force majeure through Section 8 of the CCC, which exempts parties from liability where performance becomes impossible due to an unforeseeable and/or unavoidable external event. Earthquakes typically qualify under this doctrine, but the courts will still examine whether the affected party took reasonable steps to mitigate the impact.
Commercial leases frequently contain tailored force majeure provisions, but residential leases, especially those based on standard templates or informal agreements, often lack this protection. As a result, many tenants find themselves without clear legal recourse in the event of catastrophic damage. Moreover, the absence of uniform contractual standards creates opportunities for landlords to exploit ambiguous terms or selectively enforce provisions.
Litigation in this area may hinge on whether landlords acted in good faith when invoking force majeure, and whether their actions, such as attempting to bill tenants for repairs, constitute an abuse of contractual discretion or breach of statutory duty.
Insurance Litigation and Structural Gaps in Coverage
Earthquake-related litigation is also expected to rise in the insurance sector. In Thailand, standard property insurance policies do not include coverage for natural disasters unless added through a special rider. Despite previous guidance from the Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) urging insurers to offer disaster coverage, uptake remains limited.
Adding to this problem, recent reports suggest that Thai insurers will soon exclude earthquake protection from general property insurance altogether, requiring policyholders to purchase it as a separate premium. This shift in underwriting practices could increase financial vulnerability among both landlords and tenants, particularly those unaware of their coverage limitations.
Tenants are further disadvantaged by the principle of privity of contract. Unless explicitly named in the landlord’s insurance policy, they cannot claim benefits and may need to rely on personal renters’ insurance, which few possess, or pursue claims based on negligence or contractual breach.
Common litigation scenarios include:
- Tenants initiating claims for unsafe premises, alleging that landlords failed to maintain structural safety pre- and post-earthquake.
- Landlords suing insurers over denied claims due to disputed coverage terms or damage classifications.
- Insurers filing subrogation claims against contractors or developers deemed responsible for structural failures.
Yet, with limited jurisprudence on earthquake-related claims, courts are likely to play a formative role in interpreting policy terms, allocating risk, and defining causation.
Public Support and the Limitations of Relief Mechanisms
Due to damages incurred by several properties, the Thai government has established a modest recovery scheme to support victims of the earthquake. Under this program, eligible individuals may receive limited financial assistance to help cover damage to residential property. However, the scope and scale of the relief are narrow, and many affected tenants, especially in urban areas with less formal leasing arrangements, may fall outside the eligibility criteria.
While commendable as a short-term safety net, public funding alone is insufficient to address the broader legal and financial uncertainties facing tenants. Without reform of existing laws and clearer enforcement of landlord obligations, tenants may remain exposed to coercive practices or be forced to absorb costs they are not legally responsible for.
Toward a More Resilient Legal Framework for Tenant Rights
The Myanmar earthquake has highlighted systemic deficiencies in Thailand’s approach to tenant rights, risk allocation, and disaster preparedness. Legal and policy reforms should aim to:
- Mandate disclosure of insurance terms to tenants, including any exclusions or coverage for natural disasters.
- Require standard force majeure clauses in long-term residential leases to ensure basic fairness and legal clarity.
- Establish statutory rent abatement provisions that activate during certified disasters.
- Expand and formalize public recovery programs, making them more accessible to tenants, not just property owners.
- Link building code compliance to insurance eligibility and governmental support mechanisms.
At a judicial level, the courts may need to clarify key doctrines such as impossibility, frustration, and contractual good faith in disaster contexts, especially where there is a power imbalance between landlords and tenants.The 2025 earthquake has served as a legal and institutional stress test. As insurers, landlords, and tenants navigate an uncertain recovery, Thailand’s legal community must rise to the challenge of reinterpreting existing doctrines in light of environmental realities. Whether through litigation, legislative reform, or judicial clarification, greater legal certainty is needed to ensure fairness, resilience, and accountability in the housing and insurance sectors.
The information we share in this article about tenant rights is only for general knowledge and learning purposes. We’re doing our best to keep it accurate and current, but there’s a chance some details might be outdated or not entirely on the mark. What you find here shouldn’t be treated as legal advice or the go-to for making major decisions, be it in business or law. Consulting a qualified legal professional is always recommended.
For personalized advice tailored to your situation as a tenant, property owner, or others, please contact us at [email protected] or by using the form provided on our website.
