The district court found that the insured's business income loss was not capped by the policy's flood endorsement limit, but as flood was the proximate cause of a sprinkler-system leak, that damage was subject to the flood endorsement limit. Moreover, the court held that the Named Storm Deductible Endorsement did not create a separate peril, so the flood endorsement limit still applied to flood damage, even if caused by a named storm, as the fact that the storm had a name did not alter the flood coverage.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login