The Ewells bought a home in Seaford, Delaware. They planned to renovate it and reside in it
Question:
The Ewells did not place any fire extinguishers in the house. The work on the house proceeded with the removal of plaster and gutting of the kitchen and another room. In the early morning hours of January 20, 2009, the house and its contents were destroyed by fire. At the time of the fire, the Ewells were sleeping in a shed that they had built in the back yard rather than in the house. They were awakened by the arrival of fire trucks. The Ewells informed the insurance company of the fire, and it assigned an adjuster to investigate the loss. The insurance company ultimately denied the claim because the Ewells had not complied with the condition requiring them to place fire extinguishers on each floor of the house, as required by the Endorsement. The Ewells sued the insurance company for breach of contract. They argued that the fire extinguisher provision was meaningless because no one was in the house at the time of the fire, so no one could have used a fire extinguisher if there had been one present. They also argue that the condition was not triggered because the work that they were in the process of doing was demolition and they had not yet begun renovation. Will they win?
Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!
Step by Step Answer:
Related Book For
Business Law The Ethical Global and E-Commerce Environment
ISBN: 978-0071317658
15th edition
Authors: Jane Mallor, James Barnes, Thomas Bowers, Arlen Langvardt
Question Posted: