The situation
A restaurant group lost a mall unit to a fire that started in an adjoining tenancy. Business interruption was in force, but the indemnity period had been set short. The mall's approval process for fit-out drawings, followed by re-inspection of the extraction and gas systems, kept the unit closed well past the point where the cover stopped responding. Tenant improvements the client had paid for were treated as the landlord's property and were not on the schedule at all, and plate glass sat inside the fire sum insured rather than as its own item.
What we did
We assembled the claim from the fit-out contract, the lease and the group's management accounts, and presented the mall's approval timeline as part of the loss rather than as the client's own delay. Increased cost of working was used where spending sooner reduced a larger loss. At renewal the indemnity period was lengthened to reflect how long an approval and re-inspection cycle actually takes in a mall, tenant improvements were scheduled as the client's property, and glass and money in transit were placed as separate items with limits drawn from real takings.
- Sector
- Retail and Food Service
Facing something similar?
Describe it to us and we will tell you which covers apply before quoting anything.
Get a Quote Case Studies