The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D issued a commercial property policy to P that provided property coverage-including building and personal property-along with business income coverage. The Policy contained a number of protective safeguard endorsements that limited or denied coverage if the endorsements were not met. P was required to store any 'used or soiled rags . . . in self-closing metal containers and remove them daily' and maintain a 'fully functional, actively engaged NFPA 33 approved Spray booth with proper exhaust system and fire extinguishing system.” A fire occurred in a spray paint booth that damaged both the Booth and the building that housed the Booth. The Booth had been shut down at approximately 2:45 p.m. on May 15, 2020. The fire was discovered by Plaintiffs' employees on the evening of May 16 and was extinguished by the William Cameron Engine Company at approximately 9:20 p.m., although the Booth and building nevertheless sustained significant damage from the fire. P filed a claim with D, and D hired NEFCO Fire Investigations (NEFCO) to conduct a fire cause and origin investigation, as well as a fire scene analysis. NEFCO concluded that cotton rags were lying on the floor near where the fire had occurred, and the fire suppression system did not function properly at the time of the fire. NEFCO determined that the fire was caused by a spontaneous combustion of cotton rags that were left in the Booth. D denied P's insurance claim. P sued D alleging breach of contract (Count One), detrimental reliance (Count Two), and bad faith (Count Three). D moved for summary judgment

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.