A. Tebele & Sons v. Certain Underwriters — Fire-loss coverage denial and agent verdict affirmed
The Court of Appeals affirmed across the board. The policy was not ambiguous merely because the endorsement used no special symbol next to the insured location or left the word “maintained” undefined. Read as a whole, the documents identified properties represented as fully sprinklered, and requiring a sprinkler system to be maintained in complete working order could not reasonably cover a system that had never been connected or made operational. Language covering additions under construction did not transform the unfinished sprinkler work into coverage for the destroyed building.