Opinion ID: 2612491
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: payments for improvements.

Text: Transamerica asserts that the trial court should not have allowed the jury to determine whether the Garnetts were entitled to payments for improvements to the building made during the reconstruction that were required by the local building code. We disagree. Transamerica premises this contention on the portion of the policy that excludes coverage for [l]oss occasioned directly or indirectly by enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the use, construction, repair, or demolition of buildings or structures. As we read this provision, it does not limit Transamerica's obligation for the cost of repair or replacement of the building when a loss has occurred that is covered by the policy, but merely states that if the loss itself is caused by an ordinance or law, there is no coverage. For instance, if some safety improvement of a building to which no other loss had occurred were required by an ordinance or law, Transamerica would not be liable. However, when the cost of repairing or replacing a building that had been damaged by fire is increased by the requirements of an ordinance or law, Transamerica is not relieved of that cost.