Opinion ID: 900685
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Post Incident Losses

Text: [¶ 22.] Auto-Owners contends the trial court erred in finding that Hansen Housing was not precluded from recovery under the policy for failure to maintain heat in the building. The relevant portion of the policy provides that Auto-Owners will not pay losses resulting from frozen plumbing unless the insured (1) does its best to maintain heat in the building; or (2) drain[s] the equipment and shut[s] off the water supply if the heat is not maintained. [¶ 23.] The trial court found that (1) Hansen Housing kept all of the electric heat operating in the hospital and kept the pumps constantly circulating the water in the boiler system; (2) Larry Braun, Fire Chief of the Ipswich Volunteer Fire Department, testified that upon entering the building on the evening of the loss, the temperature inside the hospital felt `warm' and well above freezing; (3) Hansen's sister testified that she went through the building a couple of days prior to the loss and the inside temperature was very comfortable; and (4) Mike Hansen was in the hospital one or two weeks prior to the loss and found the temperature between forty-five and fifty degrees inside. Accordingly, the trial court found that Hansen Housing used its best efforts to maintain heat in the hospital prior to the loss.... [¶ 24.] No definition is given in the policy for the phrase best efforts. We must look elsewhere to define this term. In Kahler, Inc. v. Weiss, 539 N.W.2d 86, 91 (S.D.1995), we equated best efforts with diligent efforts in the context of the effort required of a broker to sell property. Hansen Housing did its best if its actions were reasonable under the circumstances. It was not required to take extraordinary measures. See id.; Farnsworth, supra, § 2.13, at 78 & n.12 (likening the requirement to use best efforts with a duty to use reasonable efforts). [¶ 25.] Evidence was presented that Hansen Housing used electric heat to maintain the temperature in the building at between 45 and 50 degrees, and kept the boiler pumps circulating the water in the system. The loss occurred in early November, before temperatures typically become extremely cold. Both Mike Hansen and his sister had been in the building shortly before the loss and had found the temperature sufficient to prevent freezing. In light of this evidence, we cannot say that the court was clearly erroneous in finding that Hansen Housing applied its best efforts to maintain heat in the building.