ADJUSTERS INTERNAT IONAL . COM 9 A D J U S T I N G T O D A Y • In Omaha Paper Stock Co. v. Harbor Ins. Co., 445 F.Supp. 179, 187 (D.Neb. 1978), aff’d, 596 F.2d 283 (8th Cir. 1978), where a fire destroyed buildings and equipment, the BI period was extended by the insurer’s and its adjuster’s delay in issuing approvals for work and in adjusting the claim. • In A&S Corp. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 242 F.Supp. 584, 587 (N.D.Ill. 1965), where a fire destroyed the policyholder’s building and bowling alley, the delay by the insurer and its adjuster in approval of the contractors and plans was held to extend the BI period. • In Saperston v. American & Foreign Ins. Co., 255 N.Y.S. 405 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1932), the court noted that the existence of “evidence which warranted … a [jury] finding that a delay was caused by the acts and conduct of the insurer,” was enough to estop the insurer “from the claim that the [policyholder] did not proceed with reasonable diligence and dispatch.”4 Insurers tend to ignore these cases, and seek to place the spotlight only on the policyholder’s “due diligence.” In fact, the policy language does not relate the required “due diligence and dispatch” to the policyholder. The BI period simply is defined to end “when with due diligence and dispatch the building and equipment could be repaired or replaced.” This required “due diligence and dispatch” fairly includes both the policyholder and the insurer. If the insurer fails to do its part promptly in adjusting the claim and providing advances for repairs, the policy, the case law, and fairness dictate that the insurer’s delay must be taken into account in setting the BI period.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NjIxNjMz