The Machine Shop Fire: Coinsurance Penalty, Business Income Clock, and Code Upgrades
Northside Machine Works has a commercial package policy with these limits: building $900,000 on a replacement cost basis, business personal property $300,000, business income $500,000 with a 72-hour waiting period, CGL $1,000,000/$2,000,000. The property form carries an 80% coinsurance clause and a $2,500 deductible, and includes an ordinance-or-law endorsement with a limit equal to 10% of the building limit. In June a fire destroys one production line and damages the roof. The building's replacement cost at the time of loss is $1,200,000 and the covered building repair is $300,000. The shop is down 35 days; normal net income plus continuing expenses run $42,000 per month. The shop spends $9,000 on temporary quarters and rented equipment to keep 30% of production going. The city requires $85,000 of code upgrades to the rebuilt roof.
1. Compute the building payment and quantify the coinsurance penalty. What should the insured have carried?
Read the worked answer
Coinsurance test:
- Required insurance = 80% × $1,200,000 replacement cost at time of loss = $960,000
- Carried = $900,000
- Ratio = $900,000 ÷ $960,000 = 0.9375
- Payment = ($300,000 × 0.9375) − $2,500 deductible = $281,250 − $2,500 = $278,750
Penalty: had the limit been $960,000, the payment would have been $300,000 − $2,500 = $297,500. The insured absorbs $18,750 for underinsuring - and the coinsurance test is applied separately to the building and to business personal property, not to the policy as a whole. The $300,000 BPP limit is untouched by this loss but gets its own test if BPP is damaged.
What the insured should have done:
- Raise the building limit to at least $960,000 - and more realistically to $1,000,000+ to allow for inflation between the valuation date and a loss.
- Ask for agreed value, which suspends the coinsurance clause for the policy term, usually in exchange for a submitted valuation.
- Add an inflation guard so the limit tracks construction costs. The $300,000 gap appeared because the limit was never re-valued after 2021-era cost increases.
2. Calculate the business income and extra expense recovery and evaluate the limit adequacy.
Read the worked answer
Business income:
- Period of restoration = 35 days.
- Waiting period 72 hours = 3 days, which do not count → 32 days payable.
- Monthly loss = $42,000 → daily = $42,000 ÷ 30 = $1,400/day.
- $1,400 × 32 = $44,800
Extra expense: $9,000, paid in addition to business income. It does not reduce the business income loss - it reduces it, since 30% of production continued.
Total business income / extra expense payment ≈ $53,800, well within the $500,000 limit for this loss.
Limit adequacy - where the real problem is: 12 months of business income at $42,000/month = $504,000, which already exceeds the $500,000 limit before any growth. Business income limits are not subject to coinsurance in the usual sense, but a limit that is exhausted mid-shutdown leaves the insured paying continuing expenses out of pocket. The limit should be set from a documented 12-month projection (or a coinsurance-style business income form with an agreed amount), not rounded to a convenient number. Note also that the 72-hour waiting period applies to this occurrence only; a second, separate loss in the same policy term carries its own waiting period.
3. How does the ordinance-or-law endorsement respond to the $85,000 of code upgrades?
Read the worked answer
Check the sublimit structure before promising payment.
- The endorsement limit is 10% of the $900,000 building limit = $90,000.
- On the face of it, $85,000 is within $90,000 and is payable - plus the $5,000 remaining cushion.
- But ordinance-or-law coverage has three components that may share that single sublimit: (1) loss to the undamaged portion of the building that must be demolished to comply, (2) demolition cost, and (3) increased cost of construction. Here the code upgrades are component (3), but if the city later demands demolition of an adjoining undamaged wall, components (1) and (2) draw down the same $90,000 and the insured is exposed for the excess.
- Confirm in the form whether the sublimit is shared or whether increased cost of construction has a separate limit; ISO forms vary.
- Ordinance-or-law coverage is not in the unendorsed property form - the base policy excludes enforcement of codes. The insured here did the right thing buying it; $90,000 is thin for a 1998-vintage industrial building, and a higher sublimit is worth quoting at renewal.
- The deductible generally does not apply a second time to the ordinance-or-law payment; it is one occurrence.