Failure to Fulfill Protective Safeguards Endorsement Defeats Fire Claim
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g8JnaACT and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gdGZF3nS and at https://lnkd.in/gXt-d2Ai and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4450 posts.
In Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company v. Fun F/X II, Inc. and Cao Enterprises II, LLC, No. 22-1933, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (February 28, 2023) the insurer rejected a fire claim because the named insured knew, and didn’t tell Frankenmuth, that the sprinklers in his warehouse had no water, a breach of a material condition precedent of the policy.
Fun F/X II, Inc. and Cao Enterprises II, LLC (collectively “FUN”) sought insurance coverage after a warehouse fire. The relevant insurance policy issued by appellee Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company provides that it does not cover losses if prior to the fire the policy holder knew of a suspension or impairment in an automatic sprinkler system yet failed to notify Frankenmuth of the issue. Based on this policy exclusion, the district court granted summary judgment for Frankenmuth.
UNDISPUTED FACTS
FUN is a costume and theatrical supply retailer that stored its inventory in a warehouse in South Bend, Indiana owned by Cao Enterprises II, LLC. Victor Cao is the sole member of Cao Enterprises II, LLC and the sole stockholder of FUN. Cao purchased the warehouse in 1999. It then had a Functional sprinkler system with a working supply of water. Cao replaced the sprinkler heads around 2004 and hired inspection companies for routine system testing. In 2016, an inspector from Legacy Fire Protection found no problems.
When the same inspector returned on September 28, 2017, the sprinkler system had no water pressure. The inspector notified Cao, and the two called South Bend Water Works immediately. On November 15, 2017, Cao spoke with the city fire inspector to try to solve the problem.
Cao never heard from any water works personnel and did nothing else to check whether the water was in fact restored. No one ever told Cao the source of the problem, let alone that the problem was fixed.
The next year, a different employee from Legacy Fire Protection performed the annual inspection in the warehouse. Cao was not present for that September 2018 inspection and was not notified of any problems.
THE FIRE
A fire destroyed the warehouse and all of its contents on July 26, 2019. FUN claimed losses exceeding $7 million. The sprinkler system still did not have any water flowing to it. After the fire, the source of the problem was discovered: "The city apparently had cut and capped the pipe supplying the sprinkler system in April 2017 when the building next door was demolished. Cao was told that the worker cutting the pipe incorrectly believed the FUN warehouse was being demolished as well."
Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company’s policy contained an exclusion providing that Frankenmuth “will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from fire if, prior to the fire, you: 1. Knew of any suspension or impairment in any protective safeguard listed in the Schedule above and failed to notify us of that fact.” The referenced schedule listed automatic sprinkler systems as protective safeguards.
It was undisputed that Cao never notified the insurer after he learned in September 2017 that the sprinkler system lacked a working water supply. It is also undisputed that no one ever told Cao before the fire that the water flow had been restored.
Frankenmuth sued seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not owe insurance coverage to FUN for losses from the fire. FUN asserted a counterclaim for breach of the insurance policy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Frankenmuth based on the policy’s notice-of-impairment exclusion. The court found the sprinkler system had no water flowing to it-and that FUN, through Cao, knew of this impairment yet failed to notify Frankenmuth.
ANALYSIS
Insurance policies are generally construed using familiar contract analysis rules and the interpretation is often a question of law. Where the policy language is unambiguous, plain meaning controls.
The protective safeguards endorsement is clear and easy to apply to the facts at hand. Cao admits that he knew there was no water flowing to the sprinkler system on at least two occasions: the September 2017 inspection and his November 2017 communications with the city fire inspector. He admits that no one ever told him that water flow had been restored. Cao also admits that he never told Frankenmuth about this lack of water flow.
The sprinkler system’s function was to deliver water in the event of fire. When Cao learned that there was no water in the system, he learned that there was a “suspension or impairment in” the system and needed to report the problem to Frankenmuth if he wanted to keep the fire insurance in effect. Since there is no genuine factual dispute on the decisive question that FUN knew of a suspension or impairment in the sprinkler system prior to the fire and failed to report that problem to Frankenmuth. Cao had knowledge in September and November of 2017 that the system had no water flowing to it yet never reported that impairment to Frankenmuth.
ZALMA OPINION
The protective safeguards endorsement created a condition precedent to recovery of indemnity under the policy. Since the insured knew there was no water flowing to the sprinkler system and did not tell his insurer of the fact, the seven million dollar loss was not covered by the policy. FUN and Cao are not without a remedy. The City cut off his water supply negligently and he may sue to recover his loss because of its negligence.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Go to substack at substack.com/refer/barryzalma Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at substack.com/refer/barryzalma
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
