Business Personal Property Case Study

1894 Words 8 Pages
I. Questions Presented

1. Whether items belonging to one other than the named insured constitutes “your business personal property” or “personal property of others” when the named insured has a lease agreement the owner for real property?

2. Whether the owner of real property is an additional insured on tenant’s property insurance policy where the named insured submitted an application listing the owner as an additional insured, but the owner was not so listed on the policy?

II. Brief Answers

1. Fixtures and things other than personal property are not covered under the insured’s policy. More fact-finding will be required to determine whether the insured leased any personal property, and whether he was contractually obligated to insure personal
…show more content…
Ins. Co. v. Regency Furniture, Inc., 183 Md. App. 710, 722-726 (2009).

In the declarations page of the property coverage at issue provides that Rumba contracted to insure three specific risks, namely, “Business Income-With Extra EXP,” “Business Personal Property,” and “Improvements and Betterments.” The relevant form containing the provisions governing the “Business Personal Property” and “Improvements and Betterments” can be found in the “Building and Personal Property Coverage Form” (hereinafter the “property coverage form”) (CP 00 10 04 02) which was incorporated into the policy.

The property coverage form separates what constitutes “covered property” into three categories, namely: 1) building; 2) your business personal property; and 3) personal property of others. Critically, however, these three categories only constitute “covered property” “if a Limit of Insurance is shown in the Declarations for that type of property.” Indeed, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals has recognized this critical provision as a limitation on the definition of covered property. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 183 Md. App at 728 (“By interpreting the term “Covered Property” without reference to the Limitations of Insurance in the Declarations, the court erred. Because the Declarations do not contain Limits of Insurance for “Buildings” coverage, no such coverage was purchased by [the insured,] and therefore it has no such coverage.”). Likewise, in the instant matter, the declarations page does not show limits on insurance for “Building[s]” or “Personal Property of Others.” Therefore, Rumba does not have coverage for either of those categories that might otherwise constitute covered

Related Documents