Opinion ID: 789143
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Property Occupied by ABM

Text: 32 ABM also seeks BI coverage for income derived from property that it occupied, such as the offices and warehouses on site in which it stored equipment and conducted operations; its call center; and the freight elevators, janitorial closets, and slop sinks to which it had nearly exclusive access. Because ABM used and controlled the areas that it occupied as contemplated under the policy, we hold it is entitled to summary judgment on this issue of BI coverage. 33 ABM clearly availed itself of the property that it occupied to facilitate its income-producing activities and thus used this property. And while exclusive access to an area is not necessary to control that area, exclusivity strongly supports the conclusion that control exists. ABM's privileged relationship with, and management of, its offices, storage spaces, freight elevators, closets, and sinks indicates that it exerted power and directed influence over these premises. Therefore, ABM controlled its occupied properties. See Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged) 496 (2002) (defining the verb control as to exercise restraining or directing influence over: ... have power over). 34 Although ABM used and controlled this category of property, the district court held that it could not recover under the BI provision because [t]he undisputed cause of the interruption here was the destruction of the World Trade Center, which would have totally interrupted the ABM business here in issue regardless of what happened to the freight elevators, loading docks, etc. Zurich, No. 01 Civ. 11200, slip op. at 2. We cannot agree with the district court's approach to the causation issue because it artificially severs the chain of events occurring on September 11. Since the destruction of the WTC and the properties owned by ABM were obviously simultaneous, the destruction of ABM's occupied property was not incidental to the destruction of the WTC, as concluded by the district court, because this property was part of the complex. Accordingly, the ruination of the WTC, including the property at issue, was the cause of ABM's business interruption. Contrary to the district court's view, ABM's failure to have an interest in the entire WTC does not bar its claim for lost income due to the destruction of a portion of the WTC.