We lost the appeal on October 20th because the Panel of Judges concluded that there were no issues of fact and found in favor of the Insurance Companies. Despite their decision, we are carrying our case forward as we believe issues of fact do exist and are as follows:
1. The Ott Agency submitted an insurance application stating one of the buildings on the Grandview property was not “fully sprinklered.” This is building F, which is a fire resistive building made out of concrete and metal and it is still standing.
The Insurance companies simply did not read this application and issued insurance policy. After about 3 months, Illinois Union insurance company picked up the coverage from our previous insurance company, and added the Protective Safeguard endorsement to the policy. This endorsement effectively precludes coverage unless ALL buildings have sprinklers installed.
Because insurance company never read an application, where it was clearly stated that one of the buildings did not have sprinklers, explains why they added this endorsement the way they did. Normally, if insurance company knows that one of the buildings does not have sprinklers, endorsement can be added but then the insured (that would be Grandview) should be given an ample time to install sprinklers, usually anywhere from 1-2 months.
This is really not about the Board lying or doing anything wrong, this is about the insurance companies changing the terms of the coverage without doing their due diligence and getting away with it so far.
2. Sprinklers in other buildings were all inspected by our sprinkler company, as were the fire extinguishers etc. and everything was in the working condition according to the fire marshal reports. This, however, is another issue of fact brought up by insurance company based on the hearsay from particular unit owners.