The lawsuits against CubeSmart fall into four recognizable groups: class actions over hidden insurance commissions and unlawful lease language, individual suits over wrongful lien sales of stored property, negligence and fraud claims tied to break-ins at specific facilities, and a steady stream of consumer complaints that have drawn regulatory attention. Several have settled, one of the biggest is still in its opening stages, and a mandatory arbitration clause in CubeSmart’s current terms shapes what a new tenant can realistically file.
Hidden Insurance Profits: Coleman v. CubeSmart
In December 2016, Jerry Lee Coleman sued CubeSmart in the Southern District of Florida, alleging the company was quietly profiting from the tenant insurance it required renters to carry. CubeSmart offered the Great American Stored Property Insurance Program at tiers running from $12 to $27 per month, and its rental agreement described part of each premium as covering CubeSmart’s “expense” for collecting payments for the third-party insurer.1ClassAction.org. Coleman v. CubeSmart Class Action Complaint
Coleman called that description deceptive, arguing CubeSmart was keeping a substantial commission rather than reimbursing costs. The complaint cited CubeSmart’s 2015 annual report, which disclosed $45.2 million in non-rental revenue including insurance commissions, up $5.1 million year over year on what the company attributed to “increased insurance penetration.”1ClassAction.org. Coleman v. CubeSmart Class Action Complaint
Judge Jose E. Martinez allowed Coleman’s claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith to proceed in June 2018, while dismissing unconscionability and unjust enrichment counts with leave to amend.2CaseMine. Coleman v. CubeSmart, 16-25009-CIV-MARTINEZ-GOODMAN The case was terminated in November 2018. The public docket does not specify whether it ended in settlement or voluntary dismissal.3CourtListener. Coleman v. CubeSmart Docket
Unlawful Lease Language: Kendall v. CubeSmart
An earlier class action in New Jersey, Steven Kendall v. CubeSmart L.P., et al., No. 3:15-cv-6098, challenged provisions in CubeSmart’s rental agreements. The suit claimed the lease language violated the New Jersey Self-Service Storage Facility Act, the state’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (TCCWNA), and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.4Atticus Admin. CubeSmart Class Action Settlement Full Notice
The class covered 10,980 consumers who signed agreements with CubeSmart or its predecessor U-Store-It in New Jersey between July 2009 and September 2011. Each class member received $100: a $35 check and a $65 certificate usable at CubeSmart facilities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. No claim form was needed. CubeSmart also paid up to $117,000 in attorneys’ fees and a $35,000 award to Kendall, $30,000 of which resolved his individual property damage claims.4Atticus Admin. CubeSmart Class Action Settlement Full Notice Judge Brian R. Martinotti granted final approval on April 19, 2018, and the case was dismissed with prejudice. CubeSmart denied wrongdoing and agreed to comply with the SSFA, the Consumer Fraud Act, and TCCWNA going forward.5PACER Monitor. Kendall v. CubeSmart LP Et Al
Wrongful Lien Sale: Kelly v. CubeSmart
Cynthia Renee Kelly sued CubeSmart in the Northern District of California, alleging the company placed a lien on her stored property and auctioned it off without the notices required by California’s Self-Service Storage Facility Act. She valued the lost property at $15,000. According to the complaint, when Kelly asked a CubeSmart manager for documentation about the lien, she was told the company was “unable to provide those specific documents” and that she had “no rights.”6vLex. Kelly v. CubeSmart, 22-cv-05470-HSG
Her complaint included breach of contract, conversion, discrimination claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Ralph Act, and Bane Act, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. In June 2023, the court let the storage-act and contract claims continue, dismissed the discrimination claims with leave to amend, and denied CubeSmart’s bid to strike her request for punitive damages.7Midpage. Kelly v. CubeSmart, 22-cv-05470-HSG
The Englewood Burglary: Goodlund v. CubeSmart
The most prominent recent case is Goodlund v. CubeSmart, filed on April 21, 2026, in Arapahoe County District Court. David and Nina Goodlund are seeking more than $1 million from CubeSmart LP, a related corporate entity, and Kathleen Hughes, the general manager of the CubeSmart facility at 1090 W. Hampden Ave. in Englewood, Colorado.8BusinessDen. Victims Suggest Englewood Self-Storage Burglary Was Inside Job, Seek $1M
The complaint describes masked intruders entering the facility over three days in November 2025 using a valid access code and going directly to the Goodlunds’ unit. More than 500 items were taken, including roughly 450 pairs of shoes valued at over $200,000. The suit alleges fraud and negligence. It accuses Hughes of lying about the facility’s history of break-ins to induce the couple to rent, failing to perform required daily lock checks that would have caught the breach sooner, and initially refusing to share security footage with police. The Goodlunds say the thieves knew their move-in timing, unit location, and contents, which is why they call it an inside job. The suit also alleges Hughes orchestrated fake Google reviews as part of an “intentional campaign of consumer deception” and that CubeSmart uses “a web of shell entities” to shield itself from liability. The plaintiffs have asked Judge Ben Figa to compel production of security footage, access logs, and phone records.9Littleton Independent. Victims Allege Inside Job in Englewood CubeSmart Burglary
A criminal case is running in parallel. Brandon Lee Romero, 35, was arrested on January 9, 2026, at his grandmother’s home in Lakewood, Colorado, on charges of second-degree burglary, felony theft, drug charges, and possession of a stolen firearm. Officers recovered 179 pairs of shoes at the arrest. Romero had prior open theft cases and is being held at the Arapahoe County Jail awaiting trial.10Denver7. Englewood Police Make Arrest in CubeSmart Sneaker Theft As of early May 2026, CubeSmart had not filed a formal response, and its attorney had offered only to pass media inquiries up the corporate chain.8BusinessDen. Victims Suggest Englewood Self-Storage Burglary Was Inside Job, Seek $1M
Arbitration Clause and Class Action Waiver
Anyone considering a lawsuit against CubeSmart today has to reckon with the arbitration provision in the company’s terms of use. Disputes must go to binding arbitration handled by National Arbitration and Mediation in Chester County, Pennsylvania, and users waive the right to class actions, class-wide arbitration, and jury trials.11CubeSmart. Terms of Use
There is a narrow out. A customer can reject the arbitration agreement by mailing signed written notice within 30 days of first accepting the terms. The clause also leaves questions about the arbitration agreement’s own enforceability to a court rather than the arbitrator, so tenants can still challenge whether the clause itself is valid. CubeSmart has used the clause successfully: in Ferrell v. CubeSmart, an employment case in the Southern District of California, Judge Anthony J. Battaglia granted the company’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action in February 2025, with notices of settlement following in late 2025 and early 2026.12CourtListener. Ferrell v. CubeSmart Docket
What the Rental Agreement Says About Loss
CubeSmart’s standard rental agreement puts the burden of protecting stored property on the tenant. The company does not insure unit contents, and the renter bears the entire risk of loss. Customers waive and release CubeSmart from claims tied to theft, fire, water damage, and other causes, with any aggregate liability capped at $5,000. Tenants must carry insurance, either through CubeSmart’s third-party program or their own policy, and show proof of coverage at move-in.1ClassAction.org. Coleman v. CubeSmart Class Action Complaint13CubeSmart. Frequently Asked Questions
Those contract protections explain why the suits that reach court usually travel on consumer protection statutes, fraud, or specific storage-facility acts rather than ordinary negligence claims a liability waiver would absorb. Kendall relied on New Jersey’s SSFA and TCCWNA. Coleman relied on Florida’s FDUTPA. Kelly used California’s SSFA notice requirements. Goodlund frames the loss as fraud and negligence tied to the manager’s own conduct, not a routine theft the waiver was written to cover.
Consumer Complaints and the NYC Licensing Law
Formal litigation is only part of the picture. CubeSmart’s Better Business Bureau profile, which notes the company is not BBB-accredited, shows 466 complaints over the past three years. Of those, 283 went unanswered and 23 were marked resolved. Service issues led the categories at 254 complaints, including mold and moisture damage in units marketed as climate-controlled, followed by 85 billing complaints involving unauthorized rate increases and late-fee disputes.14BBB. CubeSmart Complaints Customer reviews on the same profile average 1.24 out of 5 stars across 96 reviews, with recurring complaints about rent increases, rodent infestations, and refusals to share security footage after thefts.15BBB. CubeSmart Customer Reviews
The pattern isn’t limited to CubeSmart. The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection received 36 CubeSmart complaints in 2025, alongside 31 for Extra Space Storage and 20 for Manhattan Mini Storage. The agency called bait-and-switch pricing “endemic to the self-storage industry” and sued Extra Space in February 2026 over deceptive pricing, junk fees, and vermin-infested units.16NYC DCWP. DCWP Sues Extra Space for Bait-and-Switch Pricing New York City passed Local Law 171 of 2025, which will require all self-storage facilities in the city to be licensed by DCWP starting August 25, 2026. The law mandates rate disclosures, three-year recordkeeping, pest management protocols, and a simple cancellation mechanism, with civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day. Five or more violations within two years can lead to license revocation.17Intro NYC. Local Law 171 of 2025 The law applies only to facilities within New York City; tenants elsewhere have no equivalent licensing framework to lean on.