Business law question The Ewells bought a home in Seaford, Delaware. They planned to renovate it and...

90.2K

Verified Solution

Question

General Management

Business law question

The Ewells bought a home in Seaford, Delaware. They planned torenovate it and reside in it later. The Ewells insured the housewith an insurance company, Lloyd's of London. Shortly afterpurchasing the house, the Ewells notified the insurance companythat it intended to renovate the house. The insurance companythereupon issued a Special Use Form Policy that contained asingle-page "Course of Construction! Renovation Endorsement." TheFire Provision of the Endorsement stated: In the event of anyconstruction or renovation work at the premises desclibed in theDeclarations the following conditions shall apply: You must ensurethat visible and accessible fire extinguishers be placed on eachlevel of the dwelling. Failure to comply with this provision willrender this insurance null and void. The Ewells did not place anyfire extinguishers in the house. The work on the house proceededwith the removal of plaster and gutting of the kitchen and anotherroom. In the early morning hours of January 20, 2009, the house andits contents were destroyed by fire. At the time of the fire, theEwells were sleeping in a shed that they had built in the back yardrather than in the house. They were awakened by the arrival of firetrucks. The Ewells informed the insurance company of the fire, andit assigned an adjuster to investigate the loss. The insurancecompany ultimately denied the claim because the Ewells had notcomplied with the condition requiring them to place fireextinguishers on each floor of the house, as required by theEndorsement. The Ewells sued the insurance company for breach ofcontract. They argued that the fire extinguisher provision wasmeaningless because no one was in the house at the time of thefire, so no one could have used a fire extinguisher if there hadbeen one present. They also argue that the condition was nottriggered because the work that they were in the process of doingwas demolition and they had not yet begun renovation.

a). Will they win?

b). Should conditions be strictly enforced? Why or Why not?

Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert
4.3 Ratings (959 Votes)
Answer A No because the logic given by them is not correct If no one is in the house then it can not be an excuse for the given condition of the insurance company Also demolition    See Answer
Get Answers to Unlimited Questions

Join us to gain access to millions of questions and expert answers. Enjoy exclusive benefits tailored just for you!

Membership Benefits:
  • Unlimited Question Access with detailed Answers
  • Zin AI - 3 Million Words
  • 10 Dall-E 3 Images
  • 20 Plot Generations
  • Conversation with Dialogue Memory
  • No Ads, Ever!
  • Access to Our Best AI Platform: Flex AI - Your personal assistant for all your inquiries!
Become a Member

Other questions asked by students