Mass. Court Nixes Claim Over Obsolete Fire Protection

A Massachusetts restaurant owner who failed to upgrade his obsolete fire suppression system was not entitled to collect insurance money after a massive fire six years ago – and must return $15,000 advanced to him by his insurer, an appeals court judge ruled.

At issue was an exclusion in a policy issued to the French King restaurant in Erving that required the owner to maintain a fire suppression system. The insurer – Interstate Fire & Casualty Co., a subsidiary of Fireman’s Fund – claimed that the fire-suppression system installed at the restaurant was obsolete, and therefore triggered the exclusion and did not require them to indemnify the restaurant.

Interstate argued that the restaurant owners knew the system was obsolete yet failed to correct problems. Fixing them might have averted a fire that damaged the restaurant in October 2005, when the system failed.

A so-called “dry” fire-suppression system, manufactured by Kidde, had been installed in the restaurant before 1974. In 2000, the manufacturer recommended that all dry systems be upgraded to “wet” ones. Two years later, it ceased supporting, inspecting and repairing dry systems.

In 2004, the state’s public safety office issued a bulletin saying that dry systems were no longer supported by manufacturers and were no longer in compliance with National Fire Protection Association codes, a requirement in the Bay State.

In 2003, the company hired by French King to service its dry system told the restaurant owners that the system was no longer in compliance and needed upgrading to a wet system at a cost of $3,250.

A year later, a building inspector told the restaurant he could no longer issue an inspection certificate because of the obsolete dry system.

A previous insurer – MassWest – had non-renewed the policy in 2002 because its system was out of date.

Following the fire, Interstate initially advanced the restaurant a $15,000 payment but following an investigation, it sought to recover the money.

French King sued the insurer but two superior court judges ruled in favor of the insurer. Appeals Court Justice Francis Fecteau affirmed those rulings.

“There is nothing in the record that indicates that this was an unconditional advancement, especially because the [insurer] had not commenced investigating why the fire suppression system did not work,” he wrote. “There was evidence that the plaintiff did, in fact, know that there could be potential issues with the Kidde system” thus Interstate “was entitled to reimbursement of $15,000.”