Limit Specified In Form Superseded By Limit on Declarations

General Liability	Broad Form Extension
Fire Legal Liability	Real Property

Fire legal liability coverage, real property was included in a "broad form" extension in a comprehensive general liability policy. A dispute arose over whether a $50,000 limit printed in the broad form provisions or a typed limit of $500,000 in the policy declarations was determining. A trial court judgment in favor of the insured was appealed.

The insurer argued that the printed limit governed; the insured contended that the provisions fixing the limit for property damage by fire were ambiguous and the issue should be resolved in its favor.

The appeal court confirmed that the printed limit in the extension form for fire legal liability was $50,000. It noted that the declarations page set limits for bodily injury liability, property damage liability, medical payments and personal injury. The list of coverages ended with the words "Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability Extension," but without a dollar amount typed alongside, as was the case with the other coverages. The sum of $500,000 had been typed where the listing of property damage liability coverage appeared.

The court concluded, from pertinent insuring provisions, that well-reasoned arguments could be made for application of either the $50,000 limit or the $500,000 limit. It noted that the insuring provisions for fire legal liability fixed the limit at $50,000 "....unless otherwise stated upon the Declarations--Part B or upon an endorsement hereto." Part B was the designation for property damage liability coverage, for which the $500,000 limit was specified in the Declarations. However, there was no statement in the Declarations, with respect to "B. Property Damage Liability," that the limit inserted for it also applied to fire legal liability, to which the separately listed "Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability Extension" applied.

The court said that Georgia law required the ambiguity to be resolved in favor of the insured. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in favor of the insured and against the insurer.

Granite State Ins. Co., Plaintiff, Appellant v. Nord Bitumi U.S., Inc. Et Al., Defendants, Appellees. U. S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 90-9160. March 17, 1993. 986 F.2d 421. CCH 1993 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 4282.