Forums

William, I certainly respect your knowledge of policy also. I think intent may be the deciding factor. Your Christmas lights were not intended to display a business, rather decorate it. The intent of the sign I handled was to provide advertisement for that business, not a display such as yours. The sign as shown is not ornamental/decorative in design, rather displayed to attract and display the business. This has gone all the way to the top of this company and they say the $1,000.00 limit will stand.

The neon tubing is permanently attached to the metal sign, therefore becomes a part of the sign. Please understand this is a metal fabricated sign with letters, with neon letters highlighting the letter on the metal box frame.

Now then, doesn't this make us all back up and think a little?  A pretty simple loss when you think about it to begin with.

I (me) and most would have taken the (it's a sign stance) originally.   But after Tom's last post...and Trader's opinion...maybe the neon tubes are fixtutres (call them night-time enhancements) attached to the sign.  You have a sign that can be seen/read during daylight, but at night then the neon highlights it.  Hmm?  I've always found a way to pay for the pole or the wood/brick monuments separate from the sign itself.  Same thing with the roof-top A/C surrounds that had signs attached.  Those were separate structures with sign facings attached.

More opinions--and discussion--like this thread envoked, will go a long way for the readers here. Just my thoughts.  Don't claim to have had the ultimate answer, but posed what I thougt were all the questions and potential answers.

By the way, Tom, you said the carrier stood by the $1000 limit.   Did that mean "payable" or "coverage limit only"?

Certainly it would appear that there exist enough varied interpretations among this learned forum that the matter is subject to more than one interpretation. This is the standard that has been used by the courts in the past in many instances to reverse a non-payment stance by the top echelons of the insurers in favor of a payment to the insured.

This is what the courts in NY had to say about ambiguity........

An exclusion from coverage "must be specific and clear in order to be enforced" (Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co., 64 NY2d 304, 311), and an ambiguity in an exclusionary clause must be construed most strongly against the insurer (see Ace Wire & Cable Co. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 60 NY2d 390, 398; Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 34 NY2d 356, 361). However, an unambiguous policy provision must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning (see Sanabria v American Home Assur. Co., 68 NY2d 866, 868), and the plain meaning of the policy's language may not be disregarded in order to find an ambiguity where none exists (see Garson Mgt. Co. v Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill, 300 AD2d 538, 539; Acorn Ponds v Hartford Ins. Co., 105 AD2d 723, 724). "[P]olicy exclusions are to be read seriatim and, if any one exclusion applies, there is no coverage since no one exclusion can be regarded as inconsistent with another" (Sampson v Johnston, 272 AD2d 956, 956; see Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v Reale & Sons, 228 AD2d 935, 936)....

This section is posted in regard to addressing interpreting ambiguity and not to the issue if the neon lights versus sign is ambiguious as that would be for others to decide.

I am not being adversarial to the posters but posting views  from my sides perspective. I learn new things on a daily basis usually as a result of controversy. I am never offended by differing opinions because my batting average includes many strikeouts. I consider being allowed to participate in the CADO forum a valuable asset.
Thanks to ALL
William S Cook
Florida Licensed Public Adjuster

Lets throw this question in this discussion. The metal building has a gable end facing I-40 and the tan baked on paint finish building has the gable end painted navy blue background for a yellow painted lettered sign that reads "Tom's Bar B Q". Is this sign a part of the building on the same policy.?   Why ?

For that matter, Ray, let's say the painted or decal signage is on large storefront windows.  Now you have glass coverage limits and sign limits to work with.  

The painting of a metal surface involves an adhesion process to the metal. It is not mechanically attached to the metal, so the painted lettering would be considered custom lettering to a metal surface and does not fall into the Limit of Insurance of outdoor signs. The lettering on glass would fall into the same category, custom lettering, if glass is covered through an extension or endorsement to the policy.

If a metal building is damaged, you cannot exclude the paint and just pay for metal. If it is cladded with a paint, it forms and becomes a part of the metal, through adhesion. Of course, this is left up to the carrier, but would be my interpretation.

Tom is correct about the signage/decal and/or lettering on storefront glass not having limitations.  But it's because they are normally applied on the interior surfaces, and therefore not Outdoor Property.   A trick question. 

Ray, where are you?

Problems are sometimes created because an agent does not understand policies they are selling to homeowners and to commercial businesses. Fortunately this agent has been educated on the CP 00 10. The agent also thought BI was a part of the policy. The insured's have placed additional coverage on their sign, have also taken out BI coverage on their business, which is quite successful. All parties concerned are now happy. Proof of Loss has been submitted and claim will be paid.

There has been a lot of down time for many. Now would be a good time to study all policies and perhaps enroll in the FC&S services, either internet or hard copy. I don't have all the answers to coverage questions, but I have learned how to find them. Policies are not cut and dried, the courts can attest to that. Just learn them as best you can and then learn how to find the answers.

This was a loss I worked in 2005 in Houston. The loss was $126,000.  to 17 AC condensing units on top of a office/warehouse that was vacant. A copper thief got on the roof in some manner and stole the copper coils out of all the roof mounted units which were quite old. Nothing but the copper no sheet metal was left in place or beside the shell of the unit. The building had a vacancy permit and the coverage was CP 10 00 90 07 88 with the CP 00 10 04 02. The underwriter instructed for me to take a ROR and sent the Texas court opine that copper theft was not  (9) vandalizm peril spelled out in the policy.

The CP 20 also is named peril; however the CP 30 would cover this loss.

Wow... everyone sure has been batting the ball back and forth across the net on this one...  I think I'll stay out of it, only to say Neon Signs are really Electrical Light Fixtures weather they are attached to a building or not.  This includes if they are attached to the interior side also.

Underwriters see them as FIXTURES !

You could have just asked your insurance adjuster and saved your money. Do you work for them? Be prepared. You are about to be blasted.

No Larry, I think it needs an L like flees.....or maybe fleas,,,,or possibly fleece......

JWG