80. A lumber yard includes an endorsement in its policy that the establishment will maintain 24-hour security service. The scheduled overnight security guard becomes ill and leaves the property one hour before his shift ends in order to seek medical care. The next guard arrives on time, finds that a storage section of the property is on fire, immediately calls 911, and the fire is extinguished. The storage section sustains losses that exceed the deductible by $1500. What is the status of the coverage for losses resulting from this fire?
Answer: A
The coverage is in effect because the interruption in security was unavoidable.
The coverage remains valid in this scenario as the interruption in security was due to an unforeseen medical emergency. The policy's requirement for 24-hour security does not negate coverage when such unavoidable circumstances arise.
A) The coverage is in effect because the interruption in security was unavoidable
This option accurately reflects the situation where the security guard's illness led to an unavoidable interruption. Since the policy often accounts for unforeseen circumstances, the coverage remains in effect despite the temporary lapse in security measures.
B) The coverage is void because security was interrupted, and the policy is permanently canceled
This option is incorrect because it implies a permanent cancellation of the policy due to a temporary interruption in security. Most insurance policies do not automatically void coverage for unavoidable circumstances, thus this interpretation does not apply here.
C) The coverage is void because security was interrupted, but reinstated when 24-hour security is restored
This option is flawed as it suggests that coverage would be voided during the interruption but reinstated later, which is not consistent with the nature of the interruption being unavoidable. The policy remains in effect despite the brief lapse in security.
D) The coverage is in effect because the guard who discovered the fire reported it promptly
While prompt reporting of the fire is a positive action, it does not address the core issue of the security interruption. Thus, this option does not justify the continuation of coverage in light of the initial requirement for 24-hour security.
Conclusion
In summary, the correct answer is A because it acknowledges the unavoidable nature of the security guard's absence due to illness, thereby maintaining the validity of the coverage. The other options incorrectly interpret the implications of the security interruption, either suggesting an undue cancellation or misrepresenting the conditions under which coverage remains applicable.