1E9Ct5D

caused by the hurricane itself. 68The insurance policy allowed consideration of“probable earnings. . . had no loss occurred.” 69 The court interpreted the term “loss” tomean the hurricane, so the insured could only recover profits it would have earned if thehurricane had not occurred. 70In contrast, in Stamen v. Cigna Property and Casualty Co., the insured’s grocery storeswere damaged by Hurricane Andrew and the insured claimed business interruptionlosses based on the profits it would have earned if the stores had been open after thehurricane. 71The insurance company claimed that this would result in a windfall for theinsured. 72The court distinguished between “loss” and “occurrence” in finding that the“occurrence” was the hurricane but the “loss” was damage to the insured’s grocerystores. 73 In finding for the insured, the court concluded that if the insurance companyintended to calculate the insured’s lost profits based only on what it would have earnedif the hurricane had not occurred, then the insurance policy could have used thatlanguage. 74As a result of such rulings, the Insurance Services Office, known as “ISO”, a supplier ofpolicy forms to the insurance industry, has amended its forms to exclude any netincome that would have been earned because of an increase in the volume of businessdue to the favorable business conditions created by the loss on customers or on other68 Id.69 Id.70 Id.71 Stamen v. Cigna Property and Casualty Co., No. 93-1005, Slip Op. (S.D. Fla. June 13, 1994).72 Id.73 Id.74 Id.March 5, 2015 23 @ 3-5-2015 ALFA International6427256.3/SP/00009/0099/011215