Thisi ssu e h a s c au se d deb atea mo n gc ourt s an d co mme ntato rs . See , e. g. , H. Rich ard 1 C h att man & Gre gory D. Miller, Measurin g BusinessI

nterrupt ion Loss inWide-I mpact 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60209

CA T L I N S Y NDI CA T E L I M I T ED , P l ai n t i f f –A pp el l ee v. I M P ER I AL P AL AC E OF MI S S I S S I P P I , I NC; I M P ER I AL P AL AC E OF M IS S IS S IP P I, L L C , D efen da n t s–A pp el l an t s

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

N o. 1: 08- C V

- 97

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d B E N AV ID E S an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg e: Insurer C atl i n Sy n di cate a n d casi n o operatorI m peri alP al ace di sagree ab o utho w t o de t erm i n e l o s s und e rt he b us i ne s s - i nt e r r upt i o n pr o vi s i o n o f t he i ns ur anc e po l i c y t hatC at l i n i s s ue d t o I m pe r i alP al ac e . Cat l i n ar gue s t hatt he busi nes s- i nt er r upt i on provi si on unam bi guousl y i ndi c at es t hat onl y hi st or i c al sal es f i gu res shou l d be consi dered w h en determ i n i n g l oss. Im peri al P a la ce argu es t h at t h e provi si on i s am bi gu ou s, an d th e re fore sal es f i gu res af

t er reo p en i n g sh ou l d also b e tak en i n to acc ou n t. 1 United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 15, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-60209 Document: 00511051539 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 60209

Catast rophes: I

nsu ranceAgainstC

atas trophesor Only AgainstI nsu red Damage from Catast rophes? , 19C O VERAG E 1 (J ul. /Au g . 2 0 0 9). 2 W e add ress ed the defi n i t i on of “ l o s s ” und e ram at e r i al l y i de nt i calbu si n essi nt e r r upt i o n pr o vi s i o n i n Fi nger Fu rnit u re Co. v. C om m on w eal t h I n suran ce C o. , 4 0 4 F .3 d 3 1 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Fi nger Fu rnit u re does n otcontr olt h i s c ase becau se i tdealtw i t h a q u est i on of T exas l aw , w h i l e t h i s c ase deals w i t h a qu est i on of M i s s i s s i ppil aw. H o w e ve r , t he r e i s no s i gni f i c antdi f

fe r e nc e b e t w e e n Te xa s a nd M is s is s ip p i la w o n t h is is s u e . A c c o r d in g ly , w e fin d th a t M is s is s ip p i co u r ts w o u ld
a p p ly th e la w in th e s a m e w a y a s T e x a s co u r ts , a n d w e A F F IR M

. I. H u rri can e K atr i n a da m aged Im peri al P al ace, f orci n g i tt o shu tdow n f or severalm on t h s. W h en I m peri alP al ace reopened , i t s r even u es w ere m u ch gr e at e rt han be f

o r e t he hur r i c ane ; m any nea r byc as i no s r e m ai ne d c l o s e d, a nd pe o pl e w ho w ant e d t o g am bl e h ad few c ho i c e s . I m pe r i alPal ac e s ubm i t t e d a
c l ai m t o i t s i ns ur e r s , i nc l udi ng Cat l i n. Cat l i n ag r e e d t o pa y t he c l ai m , b utt he pa rt i es di spu t ed Im peri alP al ace’ s l osses . I m peri alP al ace st ated t h at i t s l osses
w ere ap p rox i m a tel y $ 1 6 5 m i l l i on , w h i l e C a tl i n be l i ev ed the l oss es w ere cl ose r to $65 m i l l i on . Th e l argestdi scr epa n cy w as i n t h e am ou n tof bu si n ess- i n t errupti on lo s s : Im p e r ia l P a la c e p u t t h is a m o u n t a t a b o u t $ 8 0 m illio n , w h ile C a tlin p u t it at abo u t$ 6
. 5 mi l l i o n . T h i s d i s c r e p a n c yr e s u l t e d f r o m t h e p a r t i e s ’d i f

fe r e nt in te r p r e ta tio n s o f th e p o lic y ’ s b u s in e s s -in te r r u p tio n p r o v is io n , w h ic h s ta te s , in p ertine n t pa rt: E x p e r i e n c e o f

t h e b u s i n e s s – I n d e t e r mi n i n g t h e a mo u n t o f t h e T i me E l em en tl oss as i n sured a gainstby thi s pol i cy, du e con si derati on s hal l be give n t o e xp e r i e nc e o f t he b us i ne s s b e f

o r e t he l o s s a nd t he pr o ba bl e e xp e r i e nc e t he r e af t e rha d no l o s s o c c ur r e d. C a tli n fi led a co m p la in t in f eder a l dis trict co u rt, se e k in gd e cla ra to ry re li e f. I m pe r i alPal ac e c o unt e r c l ai m e d f o rb r e ac h o f

c o nt r ac ta nd n e gl i ge nc e , a m o ng o th e rcla im s . T h e p a r tie s f ile d cr o s s -m o tio n s fo rs u m m a r yju d g m e n t. C a tlin Case: 09-60209 Document: 00511051539 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 60209

3 a r g u e d th a tu n d e rth e b u s in e s s - i n t e r r u p t io n p r o v is io n , I m p e r ia l P a la c e ’s
r ec ove r y s houl d be ba sed o n netpr of i t s I m per i alPal ac e w oul d pr obabl y have
e ar ne d i f

H ur r i c ane K at r i na had not str u ck t he M i s s i s s i ppiG ul f Coa s ta nd dam aged i t s fac i l i t i es . T hus, C at l i n st at ed t hat Im per i alP al ac e’ s l os s sho ul d be determ i n ed by l ooking sol el y at pre- h u rri can e sale s. I m peri alP al ace argu ed t h at t h e cor re cthy potheti calw as not one i n w h i ch H u rri can e K atr i n a did not st r i ke atal l ; i tw as one i n w hi c h H urr i c ane K at r i na st r uck but di d notdam age Im p erial P a l a ce’ s fa ci l i ti es. A ccord i n gly, Im p erial P a l a ce a ve rred tha t i ts
r e c o v e r y s h o u ld b e b a s e d in p a r t o n th e a m o u n t it a c tu a llye a r n e d w h e n it
r e o p e n e d a fte rK a tr in a . A f t erc ons i der i ng t he par t i es ’ar gum ent s, the distri ct cou rt de n i ed I m per i al Pal ac e’ s m ot i on i n i t s ent i r et y, and gr ant ed C at l i n’ s m ot i on “ t o t he e xt entt hat C a tl i n [ sou gh t] a p a rti a lsu m m a ry j u d gm en t t h a t [Im p erial P a l a ce’ s] p rofi ts
u p on r eo peni ng af

t er H urr i c ane K at r i na sho ul d not be t aken i nt o ac cou n t t o determ i n e w h at [ Im pe ri alP al ace] w ou l d h ave exp eri en ced ha d the st orm not
occu rred

. ” C atl i n Syn d i cat e L t d

. v. Imperi al Palaceof Mi ss. , I n c. , No

. 1 : 0 8

- CV9 7 , 2 0 0 8 W L 5 2 3 5 8 8 8 , a t * 1 , * 8 (S .D

. M is s . D e c . 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 ). W e g ra n ted l ea ve to
a p p e a l th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s in te r lo c u to r yo r d e rs o le ly a s to th is ru lin g . II. Th e d i s t r i c tc o u r th a s d i v e r s i t yj u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rt h i s c a s e un d e r2 8 U. S

. C. § 133 2. W e ha ve j u ri sdi ct i on over I m peri alP al ace’ s i n t erl ocutory appea lun der 2 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 9 2 (b ). W e r e vi e w t he “ l e ga ldet e r m i nat i o ns i n a di s t r i c tco ur t ’ s de c i s i o n t o g r ant
su m m a r y ju d gm en t de no vo , app l yi n g t h e sam e l egal st an da rds as t h e di st ri ct
cou rt to d eterm i n e w h eth er su m m a ry j u d gm en t w a s ap p rop ri a te. ” G onz al e z v. D e nni ng , 394 F

. 3d 388 , 391 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( ci t ati on s om i t t ed). “ S u m m ary ju d g m e n t is p r o p e rw h e r e , a fte rv ie w in gth e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le t o t h e non m ov a n t, t h e rec ord i n di cat es t h at no gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i alfact Case: 09-60209 Document: 00511051539 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 60209

4 e x ists. ” Fi nger Fu rnit u re , 404 F. 3d at313 ( c i t i ng D e nni ng , 3 9 4 F .3d a t 3 9 1 ). I nt e r pr e t at i o n o f

a con t ract i s a pur e l y l e ga lm at t e r ; t he r e f o r e , w e r e vi e w t he d i s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s c o ns t r uc t i o n o f I m p e r i a lPa l a c e ’ s p o l i c y de no vo . S e e id

. ( c i t i ng S entr y I n s. v. R

. J

. W

eber C o. , 2 F .3 d 5 5 4 , 5 5 6 ( 5 t h C ir . 1 9 9 3 )). B e c a u s e th is is a diver si t y case i n vol vi n g a M i ssi ssi pp icontr act , w e app l y M i ssi ssi pp icontr act l aw t o i nt er pre tt he pol i c y. Se e I dealM u t
. In s. Co. v . Las tD ay s Evange l i c al A s s ’n , 783 F

. 2 d 1 234 , 124 0 ( 5th C i r. 198 6) ( st ati n g t h at a f ederal courtapp l i es t he s ubs t ant i ve l aw of t he f o r um s t at e i n a di ve r s i t y ac t i o n)

. U nde rM i s s i s s i ppi l aw, i f a po l i c y i s w o r de d s o t hat i t c an be give n o nl y o ne r e as o nab l e c o ns t r uc t i o n, a co u r t m u s t e n fo r c e th e p o lic y a s w r itt e n . See U

. S. Fi d. & G uar. C o. of Mi s s . v. Ma rtin , 9 9 8 S o . 2 d 9 5 6 , 9 6 3 (M iss

. 2 0 0 8 ). III . I n Fi nger Fu rnit u re , a t r o pi c al s t o r m c aus e d Fi nge r ’ s s t o r e s t o c l o s e f o ro ne t o t w o day s. 404 F

. 3d at 313
. Aw eek aft er r eo p e n i n g, F i n ger sl ash ed p ri ces, a n d s a le s s o a r e d

. I

d. Finger f

i l e d a c lai m f

or l ostsal es un der t h e bu si n essin te r r u p tio n p r o v is io n o f its in s u r a n c e c o n tr a c t w ith C o m m o n w e a lth

. I d. The b u sine ss-i n terru p ti on pr ov i sion stated , i n pe rti n en t pa rt: In determ i n i n g t h e a m ou n tof gross earni n gs covered hereu n der f or t he pur poses o f

a s c e r t ai ni ng t he a m o unto f l o s s s us t ai ne d, due consi derati on sha l l be gi ven t o t h e exp eri en ce of t h e bu si n ess bef ore th e d a te o f th e d a m a g e o r d e s tr u c tio n a n d to th e p r o b a b le e xp e r i e nc e t he r e af

t e rha d no l o s s o c c ur r e d. I d. a t 3 1 4
. Com m o nw e al t h de ni e d t he c l a i m , a r g u i n gt h a tF i n g e r ’ s i n c r e a s e d s al e s t he fo llo w in gw e e k m a d e u p fo rth e s a le s th a t it d id n o t m a k e w h ile clo s e d

. I d. at 3 1 4
. C o m m o n w e a lth file d a d e c la r a to r yju d g m e n t a c tio n . Id

. at3 13
. The di s t r i ct cour tg r ant e d Fi nge r ’ s m o t i o n f o rs um m ar y j udg m e nt , a nd C o m m o n w e a lth a p p e a le d

. Id

. Case: 09-60209 Document: 00511051539 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 60209

5 In af f i r m i ng, w e e xp l ai ne d t hat t he pr o pe r m e t ho d f o r de t e r m i ni ng l oss unde rt he b us i ne s s - i nt e r r upt i o n pr o vi s i o n was t o l o o k a ts al es bef o r e t he in te r r u p tio n ra th e rth a n s a le s a fte rth e in te r r u p tio n . I d. at314. W e no t ed t hat

“ t he po l i c y r e qui r e s due c o ns i de r at i on of t he b us i ne s s ’ s e xp e r i e nc e b e f o r e t he da t e of t h e los s a n d the bu si n ess’ s probable exp eri en ce had t h e l oss n ot
o c cu rred , ” an d tha t t h i s l a n gu a ge sh ou l d be i n terp reted as m ea n i n g “th a t a b u sine ss-i n terru p ti on l oss w i l lbe ba sed o n h is torical sa l es fi gu res.” I d. We
s t at e d t hat“ [ h] i s t o r i c als al e s f i gur e s r e f

l e c ta b us i ne s s ’ s expe r i e nc e b e f o r e t he da t e of t h e dam age or dest ructi on an d predi ct a com pa n y’ s probable exp eri en ce h ad t h e l oss n otocc u rred, ” an d that “ [ t ] h e st rongest and m ostrel i able evi den ce o f w h a t a b u s in e s s w o u ld h a v e d o n e h a d th e c a ta s tr o p h e n o t o c c u r r e d is w h a t it h a d be en do i n g in the pe ri od j u st be fore th e interr u p ti on . ” I d. W e de c l i ne d to c o ns i de rpo s t

- i nt e r r upt i o n s al e s , no t i ng t hat“ t he busi nes s- l os s pro vi si on s ays not hi ng aboutt aki ng i n to a c c ount ac t ual pos t

- dam age s al es to det er m i ne w hat the i nsur ed w oul d h ave expe r i enc ed had th e storm n ot occu rred

. ” I d. Furt her , w e s t ated th at“ [ t ] he c ont r ac tl anguage does n otsugg estt h at t h e i n surer c an l ook p rospect i vel y t o w h at oc curred af t er th e lo s s to d e te r m in e w h e th e rits in s u r e d in c u r r e d a b u s in e s s -in te r r u p tio n lo s s .” I d. T h e la n g u a g e in t h e b u s in e s s -i n t e r r u p t io n p r o v is io n o f Im p e r ia l P a la c e ’s i ns ur anc e po l i c y w i t h Cat l i n m i r r o r s t he l ang uag e i n Fi nger Fu rnit u re , w i t h o ne
m i no rdi s t i nc t i o n. I n Fi nger Fu rnit u re , t he pr o vi s i o n sa i d, “ I n de t e r m i ni ng t he
am o unto f

. . . l o s s . . . , due c o ns i de r at i o n s hal l be give n t o t he e xp e r i e nc e o f t he b u sine ss b efore t h e . . . dam ag e o rde s t r uc t i o n an d to t h e probab l e experi en ce t he r e af t e rha d no l o s s oc c ur r e d. ” H e r e , t he pr o vi s i o n s ay s , “ I n de t e r m i ni ng t he
am o unto f

t he

. . . l o s s . . . , due c o ns i de r at i o n sha l lbe gi ve n t o ex pe r i e nc e of t he b u si n ess bef

ore t h e l oss and t he pr o ba bl e e xp e r i e nc e t he r e af t e r had no l oss o c c ur r e d. ” I m pe r i alPal ac e ur ge s us t o di s t i ngu i s h Fi nger Fu rnit u re o n th is Case: 09-60209 Document: 00511051539 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 60209

I mperial P alace also argues that in Fin ger F urn itu rewe us ed los s asa desc rip tive 2 term and did not inten d to equ ate it with damage o r de struction. Nowh ere in Fin ger F urn itu re dowef in d supp ort fo r thisargu me nt. 6 basi s. B u tt h i s i s a di st i n ct i on w i t h ou ta di f ference; i n t h e c o n te x tof t h ese bu si n ess- i n t errupti on provi si on s, t h e t erm s “ da m age or dest ructi on ” an d “l oss”
ar e f unc t i o nal l y e quiva l e nt
. I nde e d, in com m o n us ag e “ da m ag e ” a nd 2 “de stru cti on ” are tw o d efi n i ti on s of “ l oss . ” R A ND OM H OUS E W EB ST ER ’ S U NAB RI DGED D I C T I ONARY 113 7 ( 2d ed

. 2 001 )

. L i kew i se, “l oss” is a syn on ym f or “da m a ge . ” I

d. at504. I n a ddi t i on , Im pe r i alPal ac e t r i e s t o di s t i ngu i s h Fi nger Fu rnit u reon i ts fac t s . I n Fi nger Fu rnit u re , t he i nsur erar gued t hat post

- st or m sal es shoul d be t ak en i n t o accoun tt o show t h at t h e i n sured d i d n otact u al l y i n cur an y l osses . H er e, t he i nsur ed— not t he i nsur er
— ar gues t hat pos t

- hurr i c ane sa l es s houl d be t ak e n i nt o a c c o untt o s ho w t hatl o s s e s w ere m uc h g r e at e rt han pr e - hur r i c ane f i gur e s w o ul d i ndi c at e . But o urde t e r m i n ati on i n Fi nger Fu rnit u re , l i ke o ur determ i n ati on here, w as based on a l egal an al ysi s of t h e bu si n ess- i n t errupti on pr o vi s i o n a nd d i d no tde pe nd o n t he fac t s t hatI m pe r i alP al ac e hi ghl i ght s . The l a n g u a g e i n t h e t w o p r o v i s i o n s i s ma t e r i a l l yi d e n t i c a l , s o t h e a n a l y s i s i s t h e s a me desp i t e t h e fact u aldi ssi m i l ari t i es. Im p erial P a l a ce a l so a rg u es th a t Fi nger Fu rnit u reis d is tin g u is h a b le be c aus e a “ fav o r ab l e c o ndi t i o ns c l aus e ” m i ghtha ve e xi s t e d i n t hatc as e , b utno ne exi st s i n t h e i n st an tcase. Afavorab l e condit i on s cl au se proh ibi t s c on si derati on of post

- l oss bu si n ess i n creases w h en determ ini n g t h e am ou n tof bu si n essi nt e r r upt i o n l o s s e s . I f a fav o r ab l e c o ndi t i o ns c l aus e e xi s t e d i n Fi nger Fu rnit u re , i t did n ot i m p a ct t h e a n a l ys i s. A ccord i n gly, i t i s n o t a v a lid b a sis on w h i ch to di s t i ngu i s h Fi nger Fu rnit u re fr o m th e in s ta n t c a s e . Fi nal l y, I m pe r i alPal ac e a r gue s t hatCat l i n’ s i nt e r pr e t at i o n o f t he busi nes s- i nt er r upt i on pr ovi si on c onf l at es t he t er m “loss” w i t h t he i dea o f an Case: 09-60209 Document: 00511051539 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 60209

C ourt s interpre ting

simil ar business-interruptionprovi sion s havegene rally reached 3 th e sa mec onclu sion . See , e. g. , F i n ge rF u rnit ure , 4 0 4F .3 d at 3 1 4(“[T]h e b u sin es s- lo ss provisionsay s nothin g abo ut takin g into account actu al post-dama gesales todeterminewhat th e in sure d wo uldh ave expe ri ence d h a d th e st or m noto cc urre d. ”) ; P ru den t ia l LMI C o m m e rc i a l I

ns . C o . v . C o l le to n Ent ers., I

nc. , No. 91-1 757 , 19 92 WL 252 507 , at*4(4th Cir. Oct. 5, 199 2) (“ [A]nin sured und er a business interruption provision such as that here in issue may notc laimas a pr obables ourc e o f expe cte d earnings

. . . a sour ce thatwoul d not it se lf have co meintob ein gb ut fo r th e inte rru ptin g pe ril’ s o cc urr ence .”); Am. Auto. I ns. Co. v. F

isherman ’s Parad ise Boats, I

nc. , No. 93-2 349 , 19 94 WL 172 023 8, at *4 (S.D. Fl a. Oct. 3, 1 994) (“[H]ad no hurricane occurred(t he policy’s b uilt in premise for a ssessingprofit expe ctancies during business interruption), [then] neithe rw ou ld the clai med earning s source.”) (quotation om itte d)

. B utsee Colle to n Enters., I nc. , 199 2 WL 252 507 , at*4(Hall , J., dissenting) (“‘Had no loss occurr ed’ does not refer to the overall loss inth e surrou ndin g area ; rather , it clearlyrefers only to th e lo ss incurr edb yth e in sure d. ”) ; Stamenv. Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. C o. , No. 93-1 005 , slip op . at 6 ( S

. D. Fl a . J u n e 1 0 , 1 9 9 4) (o r d e r gr a nti n g s u m m ary j u d g m e nt) (“ I f C i gn a h ad meant topre clu de c onsi derationof Fo odS pot’s p ost-hurricane profits in the lost profits calculation , itshouldh ave sub stitute d th e wo rd‘ oc curr ence ’ fo r th e wo rd ‘los s’inth e cl au se de sc rib in ghowb u sin es s inte rru ptio nl os se s w ouldb e calculate d. ”)

. 7 “ oc c ur r e nc e . ” I n t hi s c as e , H ur r i c ane K at r i na w as t he “ o c c ur r e nc e ” , w h i ch i nf l i c t ed “ l os se s” on m any vi c t i m s, one of w hi c h w as I m per i al Pal ac e. I m per i al P al ace asser t s t h at C atl i n asks us to in t erprett h e bu si n ess- i n t errupti on pro vi si on i n suc h a w ay t hat t he phras e “ had no l os s oc c urr ed” m or phs i nt o “ had
n o o c c u r r e n c e o c c u r r e d .” Im p e r ia l P a la c e a r g u e s th a t in s te a d , w e s h o u ld di s e nt ang l e t he l o s s f r o m t he o c c ur r e nc e a nd d e t e r m i n e los s b as e d o n a h y p o t h et i cali n w h i ch H u rri can e K atr i n a h i tM i ssi ssi pp i , dam aged al lof Im peri alP al ace’ s c om peti t ors, bu tl ef tI m peri alP al ace i n t act : t h e occ u rrence occurred, bu tthe l oss did n ot
. W h i l e w e agree w i t h I m peri alP al ace t h at t h e l oss i s d i s t i n c tf

r o m t h e o c c u r r e n c e
— a tl e a s ti n t h e o r y— we a l s o b e l i e v e t h a tt h e t wo are i n extr i cabl y i n t ert w i n ed u n der t h e l an gu age of t h e bu si n ess- i n t err u p t i on p rov i sion

. W i th ou t l a n gu a ge i n the po l i cy i n stru cti n g u s to d o so, w e d ecli n e to i n t erprett h e bu si n ess- i n t errupti on provi si on i n such a w ay that t h e l oss cau sed byH ur r i c ane K at r i na c an be di s t i ngu i s he d f r o m t he o c c ur r e nc e o f H u rri c ane K a trin a itse lf. 3 Case: 09-60209 Document: 00511051539 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 60209

8 Bec aus e “ l o s s ” a nd “ da m ag e o rde s t ruc t i o n” a r e e quiva l e ntt e r m s , t he bus i ne s s - i nt e r r upt i o n pr o vi s i o n i n Fing erFu rnit u rei s mat e r i al l y i de nt i c alt o t he pr o vi s i o n i n t hi s c as e , a nd o uri nt e r pr e t at i o n o f t he pr o vi s i o n i n Fi nger Fu rnit u re g u id e s u s n o w . Fi nger Fu rnit u re te lls u s “t h a t a b u s in e s s -in te r r u p tio n lo s s w ill b e b a s e d o n h is to r ic a l s a le s fig u r e s ,” a n d th a t w e s h o u ld n o t “ lo o k p r o s p e c tiv e ly t o w h at oc curred af t er t h e l oss. ” 404 F

. 3d at 3 1 4 . T h u s, in t h e bu si n essi n t errupti on provi si on at h an d, on l y h i st ori cal sal es f i gu res shou l d be con si dered
w h en deter m i n i n g l oss, an d sal es f i gu res af

t er r eopen i n g shou l d n otbe t ak en in to a c c o u n t. Fi nger Fu rnit u re does n ot control t h i s case becau se i tdealtw i t h a qu est i on of T exas l aw , w h i l e t h i s case dea l s w i t h a qu est i on of M i ssi ssi pp i l aw . H ow ever, t h ere i s no m ater i al di f ference betw een T exas an d M i ssi ssi pp i l aw on t h i s i ssue. Compa re P u cket tv. U

. S

. Fi re Ins. Co. , 678 S. W

. 2d 936 , 938 ( T ex. 198 4) ( “ W h en t he r e i s no a m bi gui t y [ i n a n i ns ur anc e c o nt r ac t ] , i t i s t he c o ur t ’ s dut y t o give t he
w o r d s u s e d th e i r p l a in m e a n in g .”), w ith Ma rtin , 998 So. 2d at963 ( “ [ I ] f [ an i nsur ance pol i c y] i s cl ear a nd un am bi guous, t hen i tm ustbe i nt er pre t ed as
w r itt e n .”). A c c o r d in g ly , w e fin d th a t M is s is s ip p i c o u r ts w o u ld a p p ly th e la w in t h e sam e w ay as T exas courts
. I V. W e A F F IR M

. Case: 09-60209 Document: 00511051539 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/15/2010