The following property (is excluded) while outside of buildings:

(1) Grain, hay, straw and other crops;

(2) Fences, radio or television antennas (including satellite dishes) and their lead-in wiring, masts or towers, signs (other than signs attached to the buildings) trees, shrubs or plants (other than “stock” of trees, shrubs or plants), all except as provided in the Coverage Extensions.

We feel that the exclusion is meant to exclude only free-standing signs and not signs that are designed to be attached to the building and would be attached to the building save for the time it takes to do maintenance. If you look at the other property that is excluded under item q, you see that the excluded property are all types of outdoor property which are susceptible to loss from the elements. Signs which are permanently attached to buildings are less susceptible to the elements than free standing signs or other equipment like antennas and masts that are susceptible to damage from wind loads.

The context of the exclusion clearly establishes the intent of the insurer to relieve itself from the responsibility to pay for loss to property susceptible to damage from the elements.

The insured's signs had been attached to the building, were designed only for use in that configuration and would have been reattached to the building as soon as maintenance was complete had they not been stolen in the interim.

We don't see that the insured should be penalized by this exclusion simply because their normally attached building signs were temporarily unattached at the time of the loss.

Florida Subscriber

The exclusion you reference does not make a distinction for signs that are normally attached but are not attached at the time of loss—it merely excludes signs that are not attached to buildings. Since these signs were not actually attached when the loss occurred, they are subject to the exclusion.