An office does not a restaurant make
Vacant not a question of fact
Bob owned a restaurant. Bob closed the restaurant. But Bob kept his office in the restaurant open. The sprinklers malfunctioned and the restaurant was water damaged. Bob’s insurance claim was denied. The policy did not cover losses on vacant premises or from freezing pipes. Then it was determined that the sprinklers had been deliberately tampered with and the tampering caused the damages. The claim was denied again. The trial court said the building was vacant and tha tthe vandalism and water damage exclusions precluded coverage. Summary judgment to the insurance company was affirmed on appeal.
There was no dispute that the building was vacant on the date of the loss because it was not being used for customary operations on the date of the loss. Using a small part of the building did not make the building occupied. Further, it did not matter that there was no evidence that Bob tampered with the sprinklers. The vandalism exclusion applied. There was no bad faith in the investigation of the claim.
Saiz v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company;
http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2008/11/07-1449.pdf
