Opinion ID: 900685
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Failure to Prevent Loss

Text: [¶ 42.] Finally, Auto-Owners contends that Hansen Housing should not be allowed to recover for damages to the building resulting after the initial loss because of failure to take reasonable steps to prevent further damage. The policy states that the insured must [t]ake all reasonable steps to protect the Covered Property from further damage by a Covered Cause of Loss. The trial court viewed this as a damage issue for the jury to determine in the separate damages phase of the case. [¶ 43.] Did the trial court correctly determine this was a damages question rather than a condition barring recovery? Construing the language of the policy most favorably to the insured, we conclude that the provision bears on the amount of recovery. In the policy, this provision is under the heading Property Loss Conditions and under the sub-heading Duties in the Event of Loss or Damage. Ten such duties are listed. While a number of these duties are more properly classified as conditions, for example giving the insurer complete inventories of the damaged and undamaged property, and permitting the insurer to inspect the property and records proving the loss or damage, others are more in the nature of duties bearing on the amount of recovery; for example, [r]esume all or part of your `operations' as quickly as possible. Requiring the insured to [t]ake all reasonable steps to protect the Covered Property from further damage, we believe, falls more properly into the latter category. Therefore, the trial court correctly determined that this provision did not bar Hansen Housing's recovery, and instead related to the amount of recovery and was for the jury to determine. [¶ 44.] Affirmed in part and reversed in part. [¶ 45.] MILLER, Chief Justice, and SABERS, AMUNDSON, and GILBERTSON, Justices, concur.