On appeal, one of Nationwide`s arguments was that it should not be obliged to arbitrate its assignment action against Rolande`s roofers because it was not a signatory to the contract that contained the compromise clause. In rejecting this argument, the Court of Appeal used Texas jurisprudence that an under-restricted insurer is in the shoes of its insured and that “the insurer`s right of withdrawal derives from the insured`s right and is limited to those rights.” 1.1. No transfer by the insurer. The landlord and tenant agree that their respective insurance policies that purchase non-life insurance waive any right to serlas that these companies have against the landlord or tenant. The non-life insurance policies of each party must include insurance coverage or approval with an explicit waiver of a right of transfer by the insurance company to one of the parties, regardless of the case (insured or not). Salinger and Rebbe state that most commercial leases contain some kind of waiver of the assignment and that it is important to ensure that it is the insurers involved, not the lessor or tenant, who bear the risk of loss. By giving practical advice on negotiating an acceptable form of waiver, salinger and Rebbe indicate that landlords and tenants should negotiate whether the renunciation of reciprocity or the benefit of a party. In addition, the lessor and tenant should decide whether “any person should be subject to an application for waiver of subrogation clauses in his non-life insurance, his liability insurance or both (it is less common for the parties to request, but be possible, the waiver of the subrogation clauses in the liability insurance).” As Salinger and Rebbe point out, since waiver declarations are generally reciprocal, each party should “balance the risk that it will cause damage (where it wishes to give up) and not be damaged (where it does not want to give up).” In other words, if the assignment is waived, the insurance company cannot “walk on the customer`s shoes” as soon as a claim is settled and sue the other party to recover its losses. Therefore, if the under-rogatory is waived, the insurer is exposed to a greater risk.