Our insured is an engineering firm covered under a businessowners policy (Form BP 00 02). The facts of the loss are not in dispute. The insured stored test kits in a refrigerator. As one of the employees used the refrigerator, they apparently hit the dial causing the refrigerator's temperature to drop below freezing. As a result, the liquid in the test kits froze, shattering their glass containers and ruining all twelve kits.

The insurer maintains that the loss is not covered. They cite exclusion 2.k.(7)(b) as applying in this instance. This excludes, in addition to other perils listed in this exclusion category, changes in or extremes of temperature. We feel that the loss should be covered, since it is not excluded. The exclusion cited relates to maintenance types of loss. We go a step further and say that the change in temperature was not the cause of loss. In fact, the cause of loss could also be said to be freezing. It is interesting to note that the concurrent causation language does not apply to this exclusion. It applies only to exclusions listed under another exclusion category.

Minnesota Subscriber