holding that smoke detectors that were not activated because the building did not have electricity were not "maintained" as required by the Protective Safeguards Endorsement, but cited both paragraphs 1a and 2b as the violated section of the endorsement
Summary of this case from Breton, LLC v. Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance CompanyNo. 03-P-454.
August 31, 2004.
DECISIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28.
Judgment affirmed.
holding that smoke detectors that were not activated because the building did not have electricity were not "maintained" as required by the Protective Safeguards Endorsement, but cited both paragraphs 1a and 2b as the violated section of the endorsement
Summary of this case from Breton, LLC v. Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance CompanyFull title:Anthony Mangiacotti, Jr. vs. UNITED STATES Liability Insurance Company…
Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Date published: Aug 31, 2004
In another case, the court considered whether a protective device was "maintained" where the building in…
Am. Way Cellular, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am.Because we have found no California cases interpreting protective safeguards endorsements similar to the one…