Commercial Construction Endeavors, Inc. v. Ohio Security Insurance Company, 225 A.3d 247

CCE contracted to build a livestock barn; roof trusses and framing were installed when high winds caused the partially built structure to collapse on Dec. 24–25, 2014.
CCE cleared debris and rebuilt the barn, incurring additional labor and material costs, then submitted a claim to its insurer, Ohio Security.
Ohio Security paid $24,750 under an off-premises endorsement for damage to real property where CCE was performing operations and asserted that exhausted coverage under the policy.
CCE claimed additional coverage under the policy’s Property Floater (titled “Commercial Inland Marine”), which covered “loss” to “Covered Property” (defined as business personal property) and included an “Additional Coverage – Collapse” subsection and a separate “Debris Removal” extension with a 180‑day reporting requirement.
The trial court first ruled the floater ambiguous and held collapse coverage applied (in CCE’s favor), then ruled debris‑removal costs were not covered under the floater’s collapse provision (granting Ohio Security summary judgment on that point).
On appeal the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed policy interpretation de novo and considered whether A(4) (collapse) and A(5)(a) (debris removal) apply to the collapsed barn and removal costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the floater’s “Additional Coverage – Collapse” (A(4)) covers the collapsed barn or is limited to “Covered Property” (business personal property)	A(4) does not repeat the term “Covered Property,” so it should not be limited to business personal property and therefore covers collapse of the partially built barn	The floater’s opening sentence limits coverage to “loss” to “Covered Property”; that limitation applies to all subsections including A(4), so collapse coverage is limited to business personal property	Court held unambiguous that A(4) is limited by A’s definition of “Covered Property”; reversed trial court’s ruling that A(4) covered the barn
Whether debris‑removal costs are recoverable under A(4) or under A(5)(a) (and whether the 180‑day reporting rule bars recovery)	Debris removal is part of “loss” and thus covered under A(4) as the trial court initially construed it; alternatively, reported timely	Debris removal coverage is governed by A(5)(a) (which applies only to Covered Property and requires written notice within 180 days); barn and removal costs are not Covered Property and reporting rules apply	Court affirmed that debris removal is not covered under A(4) because A(4) applies only to Covered Property; court did not need to resolve the 180‑day timeliness question

Waters v. Concord Grp. Ins. Cos., 169 Vt. 534 (policy provisions read together; ambiguous terms construed for insured)
DeBartolo v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 181 Vt. 609 (refused to imply a use limitation from declarations where policy language did not support it)
Isbrandtsen v. N. Branch Corp., 150 Vt. 575 (contract fairly admitting but one interpretation is not ambiguous)
Sanders v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 148 Vt. 496 (variance in parallel provisions does not create ambiguity absent a reason to read them differently)
Webb v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 158 Vt. 137 (ambiguity exists only where policy is reasonably susceptible to different constructions)