The insurer states that the damage was from one “event” so that the $25,000 limit applies to the total of the loss at both locations. The insured maintains that a separate event occurred at each location. He argues that if one office had been in Florida and the other in Louisiana , the insurer would view it as two events, so the same principle applies even if they are across the street from each other.

Florida Subscriber

A

The insured gets the benefit of the doubt whenever there is a provision that is open to more than one reasonable interpretation since the insurer, being the one who prepares the contract, is the party with the opportunity to tie down all loose ends.

In this case, the policy covers loss of business income and extra expense attributable to interruption of utility service at the described premises when the interruption occurs away from the premises and is caused by a covered peril. The policy specifies a limit for this coverage and ties the limit to “all covered loss caused by any one event.”

The insured's argument is that “event” relates to loss at the insured premises, so that an interruption of utility service at the premises is an “event” unique to that premises, regardless of the number of “events” triggered by the same cause. Obviously, the insurance company wants to treat the storm as the “event,” triggering one limit no matter how many premises are affected. If the contract does not impose a stronger barrier than the word “event” to the insured's argument, the insured wins.

This view may seem inequitable if the insured is getting a premium discount for coverage at two locations, but the insurer is the only party that can write a policy or endorsement to take such situations into account.