The problems holding up an insurance settlement for Zelienople’s Kaufman House restaurant aren’t being disclosed because of the possibility of legal action. But there are two lessons to be learned from the rejection of the restaurant’s insurance claim.

Paramount is that when anyone — a business, individual, agency or whatever — buys a policy, that the buyer reads the policy closely and fully understands exactly what is and isn’t covered.

The owners of Kaufman House thought the restaurant was overinsured, but they apparently failed to notice policy provisions under which the insurer had a window — just or unjust — for denying coverage under certain circumstances.

The second lesson is how much the loss of such a popular business can negatively impact not only the owners, who depend on income from it, but also the community.

Some people who came to eat or attend functions such as weddings at the Kaufman House spent money at other businesses in and around the borough. With the Kaufman House not operating, that ripple-effect money is being spent elsewhere.

Meanwhile, tax revenue that the borough received from the restaurant’s operation won’t be available as long as the restaurant remains closed.

It was on Oct. 5 that the restaurant’s kitchen area was heavily damaged by a grease fire. The damage estimate, including smoke and water damage outside the kitchen, has been estimated at $200,000.

Regarding the insurance snafu, it’s understandable that the restaurant’s owners would be distraught; they’d bought the same insurance for 40 years and depended on the coverage if something went wrong.

But judging from the insurance company’s stance, there was something in the policy that Kaufman House owners should have noticed, been concerned about, and addressed, possibly by obtaining a legal opinion or by discussing the provision with someone else knowledgeable about insurance issues, even possibly the Pennsylvania Insurance Department.

As the situation stands, the only thing that appears to be happening is that the restaurant continues to lose income, while the ongoing uncertainty haunts the eatery’s employees.

The restaurant’s owners had hoped that, by mid-February, they would have been halfway through the repair-remodeling process. Instead, as co-owner Karen McNulty said, setting a date for reopening is impossible because of the lack of insurance proceeds to pay for repairs.

The restaurant owners’ plight is a sobering reminder to anyone buying insurance — especially the people who buy a policy and then, without reading it, file it or put it in a safe deposit box.

When an insurance policy is being bought, the purchaser always should understand the possible interpretations of policy provisions.

Kaufman House owners apparently thought they had such a full understanding, but they obviously didn’t.

At this time it would be premature to peg the insurance company as the villain in the dispute. The insurance company has the right to protect its best interests, just as the Kaufman House owners have a right to expect compensation to cover their losses.

For the Kaufman House and its customers, and for Zelienople as a whole, it must be hoped that an amicable settlement is achieved without a long-drawn-out legal battle.