Our insured owns a small restaurant that was robbed at 9:30 on a Saturday night. Everyone was locked in a cooler by the robbers while they emptied the cash drawer and smashed the computer that operates the cash register and customer order system. Because the computer was down, the restaurant remained closed Saturday night and did not open again until its normal opening time of 11:00 Monday morning. The computer was fixed by this time. The insured carried an open perils business income coverage form (without extra expense) and the extended business income option. The insurance company paid the business income loss for the balance of Saturday night and Sunday, but refused to honor the extended business income option for the decrease in business the insured suffered during the week following the robbery. Business was down one third that week.

The insurance company argues that the decrease in business during the week following the robbery was due to fear of bodily injury in the minds of potential patrons and was not caused by the time required to repair the physical damage to the computer. They maintain that the short-term closing was not long enough to cause the loss of customer base intended to be covered by the extended business income option. We feel that the extended business income coverage should apply.

Ohio Subscriber

All of the elements required for a covered extended business income loss are present in your insured's loss. Business was suspended because of direct physical loss or damage to the computer ordering system. The loss was covered by a covered cause of loss. The insurance company admitted this by paying the business income loss suffered from Saturday night until Monday morning. An additional loss of business income began on the date the property was repaired and operations were resumed and ended at the end of the week when the insured's operations were restored to the condition that would have existed if no direct physical loss or damage occurred.

The insured does not have to establish the motives of the customers who stayed away from the restaurant because the policy does not require it. The insurance company's presumption that customers stayed away out of fear of bodily harm is irrelevant, as is the presumption that the restaurant was not closed long enough to lose its customer base. All that is required is a covered loss and a decrease in business during the time period allowed by the policy. These conditions were met by your insured's extended business income loss.

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis