Gilbert/Robinson, Inc. v. Sequoia Insurance Co.

I must register a dissent to the court’s disposition of plaintiffs’ Point II.

As an alternative to their claims for recovery of the full scheduled limits for each flooded restaurant, plaintiffs in their Point II contend that they are at least entitled to collect up to an additional $25,000 for each restaurant for business interruption loss. They base this contention upon their reading of endorsement FP-10 as “internally ambiguous.”

Laying aside for a moment any question of ambiguity, we should first determine whether any reasonable construction of FP-10 would entitle plaintiffs to more than…