The Baldi building is evidence in lawsuit
My understanding is that Lloyd's of London, the insurer of the burned out building, is declining to pay insurance because either the owners or the representative of the owners indicated to Lloyd's that the building had a sprinkler system or other supression system in place, when in reality, there was no system in place. Consequently, with the Baldi vs. Lloyds suit and the Lloyd's vs. Baldi suit - the building itself is evidence that must be left in place until the legal wrangling is finished. I could be wrong, but that's how I hear it from folks in the insurance business.
|