Exactly, depends on the wording, level of missing maintenance, otherwise adequacy of design, water supply etc.
I have been on insurance side for more than 30 years, I have not seen a claim totally rejected on this basis. But the insurers perhaps will decline first so the insured goes to court, where discussion on how much the loss would be if the system was maintained but did not control the fire would start and parties normally settle at a sum. Need to see the wording though, this is just a general view. (I am not working for any insurer now so his is purely a personal view :-) ) Jack -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Wednesday, 21 November, 2012 5:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Interesting Question It would probably depend on the language in the insurance policy. At 10:24 AM 11/21/2012, you wrote: >A client posed an interesting question. >(1) Assume that your sprinklers were required by code. >(2) Your Insurance rate was based upon being fully sprinklered. >(3) Your system hadn't been inspected or properly maintained in several years. >(4) You have a fire and the building & contents are a total loss. > >Would your insurance pay? >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >scrubbed... >URL: ><http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac >hments/20121121/6393c05c/attachment.html> >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
