Artist Building Partners and Howard Caughron v. Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance Company, 435 S.W.3d 202

Artists Building Partners and Howard Caughron owned a Nashville commercial building damaged by fire in 2005; insurer Auto-Owners covered structure and lost business income/extra expenses during restoration.
Insurer paid some losses but contested the precise amount for lost business income after appraisal; Plaintiffs sued January 11, 2007 for additional sums.
Appraisal panel in October 2007 fixed: building value, actual BI loss incurred ($1,060,297.66 from June 2005–April 2008), and a six-month restoration period from when construction began; BI and extra expense amounts fed into a single appraisal.
Plaintiffs argued the twelve-month cap in the BI/Extra Expense endorsement did not limit BI; Insurer argued the cap applied to both BI and Extra Expense.
Trial court ruled the twelve-month cap was ambiguous and applied only to Extra Expense; court also found discovery issues related to the umpire’s files.
On appeal, the court affirmed and remanded, holding BI loss was not limited to twelve months and that the six-month restoration period did not cap BI; it also denied Insurer’s inquiry into the umpire’s entire file.]

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the twelve-month cap apply to BI or only Extra Expense?	Caughron argues BI is uncapped.	Auto-Owners argues BI and Extra Expense both limited to 12 months.	Ambiguous; interpretation favoring insured; BI not limited to 12 months.
Did the appraisal award fix a six-month restoration period that caps BI at six months?	Award’s six-month line should cap BI.	Six-month line was a separate, non-binding timing note.	Appraisal panel’s six months did not cap BI; BI spans June 2005–April 2008.
Was the subpoena of Umpire Smith’s entire file an abuse of discretion?	Need full file to clarify award.	Subpoena seeks overly broad, burdensome records.	No abuse; trial court properly quashed; limited discovery allowed.

Continental Ins. Co. v. DNE Corp., 834 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1992) (BI coverage tied to period of restoration)
Gates v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 196 S.W.3d 761 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (ambiguous policy language interpreted favorably to insured)
Naifeh v. Valley Forge Life Ins. Co., 204 S.W.3d 758 (Tenn. 2006) (interpretation of policy language; ordinary meaning)
Garrison v. Bickford, 377 S.W.3d 659 (Tenn. 2012) (ambiguity resolves in insured’s favor)
Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Batts, 59 S.W.3d 142 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (appraisal scope limited to amount of loss; not coverage questions)
Tata v. Nichols, 848 S.W.2d 649 (Tenn. 1993) (contract interpretation when ambiguous)
Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Williams, 174 S.W.3d 230 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (ambiguity and interpretation rules for contracts)
Swindler v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 223 Tenn. 304, 444 S.W.2d 147 (1969) (ordinary meaning of policy terms)