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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
