Extension of a property damage policy treating a supplier's site as though it belonged to the insured, and therefore responding only where physical damage occurs at a named site.
That derived construction imposes three cumulative conditions, each of which is in practice a distinct obstacle: physical damage, a peril appearing in the policy schedule, and a site either named or caught by a generic clause carrying a modest sub-limit. The product never promised anything else and its price reflects that limitation, but the implicit assumption underlying it has dated. It assumes production stops because something has been destroyed in an identifiable factory, an accurate description of twentieth-century industry. Yet the major disruptions of the past decade, strait closures, sanctions, export controls, sole-supplier insolvency, software failure spread by update, produce the same economic effect as a fire without sharing any of its legal characteristics, and all fail at the first condition.
A buyer comparing limits without reading the definition of the triggering fact believes he is buying protection against supply disruption, when he is buying protection against a named supplier's fire.
CBI, carence fournisseur, perte d'exploitation sans dommage, contingent BI