The Supreme Court of Vermont has ruled that an insurer did not have to reimburse its insured for expenses incurred by the insured to remove the remains of a collapsed barn that it was constructing and rebuilding it to its pre-collapsed state because the barn was not the insured's "business property."

The Case

On a winter night in 2014, strong winds blew through the town of Georgia, Vermont, causing a partially constructed livestock barn to collapse. Commercial Construction Endeavors, Inc. ("CCE"), the contractor building the barn, cleared debris and rebuilt the barn, incurring labor and material costs.

CCE sought compensation for those costs from its insurer, Ohio Security Insurance Company.

Ohio Security determined that CCE was at fault because the barn had not been properly braced to withstand the weather conditions, and that the resulting loss was covered under a policy endorsement that provided coverage for damage to real property upon which CCE was performing operations where the damage resulted from those operations.

Upon adjustment, Ohio Security paid CCE $24,750 – the full amount available under that endorsement, less an applicable $250 deductible.

Although Ohio Security indicated that the payment exhausted the coverage available under its policy, CCE asserted that coverage also was available under the policy's "Property Floater Coverage Form" for the costs it incurred in removing the remains of the collapsed barn and rebuilding it to its pre-collapse state.

Ohio Security determined that there was no coverage for CCE's loss under the floater, advising CCE that the policy did not provide coverage "for materials after they have been installed into the building project under the Property Floater Coverage."

CCE sued Ohio Security for breach of contract, contending that coverage existed under the floater.

The trial court held that CCE's rebuilding expenses were covered under the policy, but that the cost of debris removal was not.

The dispute reached the Supreme Court of Vermont.

The Ohio Security Insurance Policy

The floater to the Ohio Security insurance policy provided:

A. COVERAGE

We will pay for "loss" to Covered Property from any of the Covered Causes of Loss.

1. COVERED PROPERTY, as used in this Coverage Form, means:

Business personal property you own, including but not limited to equipment, tools, items, or materials to be installed and office business personal property. Business personal property owned by others including but not limited to employees [sic] tools or rented equipment or tools, while they are in your care, custody or control and for which you have accepted responsibility. . . .

5. COVERAGE EXTENSION

a. DEBRIS REMOVAL

(1) We will pay your expenses to remove debris of Covered Property caused by or resulting from a Covered Cause of Loss that occurs during the policy period. The expenses will be paid only if they are reported to us in writing within 180 days of the direct physical loss or damage[.]

The Vermont Supreme Court's Decision

The court ruled that the floater to the Ohio Security insurance policy covered neither CCE's rebuilding expenses nor the cost of debris removal.

In its decision, the court explained that the floater limited its grant of coverage to "covered property," which the floater defined as "business property." Because the barn was not CCE's business personal property, it was not covered property, the court decided.

Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's first summary judgment ruling.

Then, the court ruled that the floater also did not recover debris removal because the debris removal was "not a loss involving business personal property." Given that it was not a loss of "covered property," the court affirmed the trial court's second summary judgment ruling.

The case is Commercial Construction Endeavors, Inc. v. Ohio Security Ins. Co., No. 2019-045 (Vt. Dec. 13, 2019). Attorneys involved include: Helen M. Toor, J. (summary judgment orders); Alison S. Arms, J. (final judgment). Kevin E. Brown of Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, Middlebury, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Susan J. Flynn of Clark Werner & Flynn PC, Burlington, and Paul T. Sullivan of Zelle LLP, Framingham, Massachusetts, for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Steven A. Meyerowitz

Steven A. Meyerowitz

Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].

More from this author ⟶