Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

“Baby, It’s Cold Outside”…But Make Sure You Don’t Get Burned After a Loss By Failing To Comply With Your Policy’s Protective Safeguards Endorsement

By Paul LaSalle on January 4, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

With frigid temperatures setting in here in the Northeast and other parts of the country, it is an ideal time for insureds to ensure they are compliant with the protective safeguards1 endorsement that may be attached to their commercial policies.

The protective safeguards endorsement2 expressly provides that “[a]s a condition of this insurance, you are required to” maintain the protective safeguards listed in the endorsement schedule in complete working order (and in the “on” position at all times for any automatic system.). The endorsement also requires that insureds notify their insurer if the insured knows of a suspension or impairment of any protective safeguard listed in the endorsement schedule. Should the insured fail to comply with any of the protective safeguards endorsement’s conditions prior to a fire, the insurer “will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from [the] fire.”

Generally, courts have found that the terms of the protective safeguards endorsement are unambiguous and enforceable. Thus, the insureds’ failure to comply with the protective safeguards endorsement may constitute a valid ground for an insurer to deny coverage. In a recent case,3 a federal court in New Jersey rejected an insured’s argument that the insurer’s denial of coverage based upon the failure to comply with the protective safeguards endorsement should not be upheld as “unfair” because the lack of the non-functioning safeguard (i.e., operational circuit breakers) was allegedly not the cause of the fire which created the loss. The court also rejected the insured’s argument that because its owner did not read the insurance policy, it should not be bound by it. In doing so, the court bluntly stated, “[a]n insured cannot escape the clear terms of an insurance policy just because it has not read them.”

Commercial property insureds should ensure they are compliant with their protective safeguards endorsement prior to a fire, or risk really being burned after coverage is denied.
__________________________________
1 There are six protective safeguards: an automatic sprinkler system (P-1), an automatic fire alarm (P-2), a security service with a recording system or watch clock making hourly rounds covering the entire building when the premises are not in actual operation (P-3), a service contract with a privately owned fire department for fire protection service (P-4), an automatic commercial cooking exhaust and extinguishing system (P-5), or another protective system described in the endorsement schedule (P-9).
2CP 04 11 09 17.
3Vineland 820 N. Main Rd., LLC v. United States Liab. Ins. Co., No. 17-2986, 2018 WL 4693965 (D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2018).

Photo of Paul LaSalle Paul LaSalle

Paul L. LaSalle focuses his practice of law in first party property damage cases and bad faith litigation. Prior to joining the Merlin Law Group, Mr. LaSalle defended public entities and public employees in civil rights, personal injury and employment litigation matters. He…

Paul L. LaSalle focuses his practice of law in first party property damage cases and bad faith litigation. Prior to joining the Merlin Law Group, Mr. LaSalle defended public entities and public employees in civil rights, personal injury and employment litigation matters. He uses his prior experience working with insurance companies to be a passionate and prudent advocate for policy holders to ensure they receive all deserved benefits from their insurance policies following their losses.

Mr. LaSalle has litigated hundreds of varying types of civil cases. He has substantial appellate experience, having argued a dozen appeals before state and federal courts. He has also successfully petitioned, then won a case before, the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Mr. LaSalle is a Cum Laude graduate of Monmouth University and the University of Dayton School of Law, where he earned the highest grade in his legal research and writing class. He is a life-long resident of Monmouth County, New Jersey. When not working hard for his clients, Mr. LaSalle spends his time at the beach with his family.
Read More…

Read more about Paul LaSalleEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Business and Commercial, Insurance
  • Organization:
    Merlin Law Group, P.A.

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo