This should trigger a denial of any applicable coverage. Maintaining a WORKING sprinkler is precedent to underwriting the risk. It is a material increase in hazard to allow it to be turned off. Maybe somebody just wanted it to burn.
They couldn’t deny the claim if the Protective Safeguard Warranty endorsement wasn’t on the policy. These days, underwriting seems to be a thing of the past – I can’t tell you how many times I hear… Your rate is too high… You have too many exclusions… There are too many conditions… whaaa whaaa whaaa – Soneone might have given in to get the $$$ on the books to make budget… and we all know where that gets you
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
This should trigger a denial of any applicable coverage. Maintaining a WORKING sprinkler is precedent to underwriting the risk. It is a material increase in hazard to allow it to be turned off. Maybe somebody just wanted it to burn.
Shouldn’t there be a sprinkler warranty in the policy which would preclude coverage also?
They couldn’t deny the claim if the Protective Safeguard Warranty endorsement wasn’t on the policy. These days, underwriting seems to be a thing of the past – I can’t tell you how many times I hear… Your rate is too high… You have too many exclusions… There are too many conditions… whaaa whaaa whaaa – Soneone might have given in to get the $$$ on the books to make budget… and we all know where that gets you