The owner of a car dealership filed a claim for income lost because of a snow storm which forced his business to close for a week. The dealership was protected by a commercial property insurance policy which included coverage for business interruption. The snow storm damaged the dealership roof and, because the paths to the business were blocked by snow, the dealership was closed until the roads were cleared. The insured filed two claims, one for the roof damage and the other for a week's worth of lost profits.

The cost for the roof repair was paid, but the insurer denied the claim for more than $50,000 in lost profits since the roof damage did not cause any interruption of business. The insured filed for a summary judgment contending that the inaccessibility to his dealership, created by the storm, was the same as his business being damaged and closed for repairs. The court reviewed the policy language and denied the insured's motion. The decision was appealed.

The appeals court also reviewed the facts of the claim and the policy language. They focused on several parts of the policy dealing with business interruption, particularly the following:

"BUSINESS INCOME COVERAGE FORM (AND EXTRA EXPENSE), A. COVERAGE

We will pay for the actual loss of Business Income you sustain due to the necessary suspension of your "operations" during the period of restoration. The suspension must be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property at the premises described in the Declarations..."

The appeals court decided that rather than guaranteeing protection against all forms of business interruption, the policy clearly stated that protection was against business interruption caused by "direct physical loss from an insured peril." The dealership's income loss was due solely to the storm's blocking access to the dealership. This situation was not one contemplated by the policy, and the court affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of the insurer and against the insured.

(HARRY'S CADILLAC-PONTIAC-GMC TRUCK COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellants v. MOTORS INSURANCE CORPORATION ET AL., Defendants. Florida District Court of Appeals. No. 96-1351. July 2, 1997. CCH 1997 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 6189.)