Opinion ID: 2500072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Extraexpense Endorsement

Text: ¶ 48 In its cross appeal, Vision contends the trial court erred in interpreting the policy's extraexpense endorsement to preclude Vision from presenting evidence of millions of dollars of delay losses following the collapse. The extraexpense endorsement provided $1 million in coverage for certain losses incur[red] as the result of the project being delayed, when the delay is directly caused by any of the Covered Causes of Loss. CP at 5985. The endorsement provided a list of covered losses, including [c]onstruction loan interest, [r]eal estate and property taxes, and [l]egal and accounting fees. Id. ¶ 49 The trial court concluded that these soft costs listed in the extraexpense endorsement were limited to the $1 million amount provided in the endorsement because the general policywhich had a $12.5 million limitdid not cover these soft costs. Vision claims the trial court erred because the losses listed in the endorsement were included in the policy's general grant of coverage. Vision argues the extraexpense endorsement was designed to provide an additional $1 million for the specified delay losses in the event the $12.5 million limit was exhausted. ¶ 50 Vision's policy covered direct physical `loss' to Covered Property caused by a covered peril. CP at 5973. The soft costs listed in the extraexpense endorsement were neither physical losses nor losses to covered property. Nevertheless, Vision claims that because soft costs were not excluded under the policy, they were covered. Vision argues that the policy's exclusion of losses caused by or resulting from ... [d]elay... or any other consequential loss, CP at 5977, applied only to physical losses, not financial losses. ¶ 51 Vision's argument fails because it wrongly assumes the policy covered financial losses in the first instance. While Vision's policy was an all-risk policy, coverage extended only to physical losses to covered property. CP at 5973. It is of no consequence that soft costs were not specifically enumerated under the delay-and-consequential-loss exclusion. Because the policy did not cover soft costs, there was no need to exclude them. While the extraexpense endorsement provided coverage for certain financial losses resulting from the delay, the endorsement limited coverage to $1 million. We affirm the trial court on this issue.