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.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
