Restaurant Fire: Coinsurance, Waiting Period and Extended Business Income
Rosa's Kitchen is a 90-seat restaurant insured under the Business Income and Extra Expense Coverage Form with a $600,000 Limit of Insurance, an 80% coinsurance percentage, a 72-hour business income waiting period, and Special Form causes of loss. On February 2 a kitchen fire puts the dining room out of service; the adjuster and contractor agree that the building can be restored with reasonable speed in 120 days. The insured's business income for the preceding twelve months - net profit plus continuing normal operating expenses, including ordinary payroll - is $1,000,000. The insured reopened at the end of the 120-day restoration period and incurred no extra expense in excess of normal operating costs. Actual business income lost during the interruption is $240,000, or about $2,000 per day. After reopening, sales ran about 25% below normal for five weeks because the landlord had not completed reconstruction of the shared entry corridor, which kept the street-side entrance closed.
1. Calculate the business income payment for the 120-day restoration period.
Read the worked answer
Step 1 - Coinsurance requirement. 80% x $1,000,000 annual business income = $800,000. The insured carried $600,000.
Step 2 - Ratio. $600,000 / $800,000 = 0.75.
Step 3 - Apply the waiting period. The 72-hour waiting period is a time deductible. At $2,000 per day, the first three days ($6,000) are not payable. Covered loss = $240,000 - $6,000 = $234,000.
Step 4 - Apply the ratio. 0.75 x $234,000 = $175,500, which is within the $600,000 limit.
The teaching point is that the $600,000 limit looks generous against a single fire, but coinsurance is not tested against the size of one loss; it compares the limit carried to 80% of the annual business income exposure. Carrying $600,000 against an $800,000 requirement means the insured self-insures 25% of every business income loss for the policy year. The fix before the loss was either to raise the limit to $800,000 or to buy the Agreed Value option, which removes coinsurance in exchange for an annual statement of values.
2. Does the policy respond to the five weeks of reduced sales after reopening? Explain the mechanism, its limits, and how it interacts with the coinsurance calculation above.
Read the worked answer
Yes, for the first 30 of those days.
Extended Business Income pays business income loss that continues after the period of restoration ends, provided the insured has resumed operations but has not returned to the pre-loss level of business. Recovery here is limited to 30 consecutive days; the fifth week falls outside the extension and is uninsured. This fits the extension's purpose: the restaurant was open, but the entrance closure kept sales depressed, and that closure traces back to the same fire.
The extension is not a fresh pot of money. The payment comes out of the same $600,000 limit, and the amount is treated as part of the business income loss for coinsurance purposes, so the 0.75 factor continues to apply to the extended loss. The insured should document the weekly sales decline against a pre-loss baseline - ideally the same weeks in prior years - to substantiate the amount.
If the insured needed a longer tail, a modification to extend the 30-day period would have had to be negotiated before the loss; the standard extension is not adjustable after the fact.
3. The insured submits business income loss for an additional 45 days, arguing that the reconstruction took longer than planned because it decided to expand the dining room and install upgraded kitchen equipment. Address the period of restoration.
Read the worked answer
The extra 45 days is not part of the period of restoration, and the income lost during that period is not covered.
The form defines the period of restoration as ending on the date when the damaged property should be repaired, rebuilt or replaced with reasonable speed and similar quality, or when the business is resumed at a new permanent location. The measure is objective - what a reasonably diligent contractor would have taken to restore the pre-loss building with like kind and quality - not what the insured chose to do.
Expanding the dining room and upgrading the kitchen are voluntary betterments. The income lost while that work proceeded is not caused by the fire in the coverage sense; it is caused by the decision to improve the premises. The adjuster should cut off the period using the contractor's schedule, permit records and the date the original configuration could have been restored.
Note also that the increased value of permanent improvements is not a business income item and would not be paid as extra expense. If the insured wanted a longer income tail to fund an upgrade, it needed a larger limit or a negotiated extension before the fire; there is no standard provision that converts voluntary delay into covered interruption.