Under which condition would a building not be covered by vandalism and malicious mischief endorsement?

A building would not be covered by a vandalism and malicious mischief endorsement if it has been vacant for a certain time period. This restriction is in place because insurers consider vacant properties to be at a higher risk for vandalism and other types of loss. When a building is unoccupied, there are often no occupants to deter potential vandals, leading to increased susceptibility to damage. As a result, many insurance policies include a specific clause that excludes coverage for vandalism on vacant buildings, limiting the insurer's liability.

In contrast, recent renovations to a building do not inherently affect the coverage status in regard to vandalism and malicious mischief, as the insurance policy is focused on occupancy rather than the physical condition of the building. Natural disasters, such as storms or floods, would generally fall under separate coverage types and are not typically included under vandalism endorsements, which address intentional acts. Last, if a building was occupied at the time, it would usually qualify for coverage under the endorsement, as the presence of occupants reduces the likelihood of vandalism.