The Court found that the language of the endorsement had unambiguously expanded the policy's coverage to include coverage for both physical loss and business loss caused by flood but because the policy had separate limits of liability for physical loss and business loss, based on the language used, the limit of liability included in the endorsement only modified the limits of liability for physical loss included in the main policy and therefore, the insurer owed additional sums to the insured for its business loss.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login