Opinion ID: 1808850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Business Personal Property

Text: Lafayette claims that the court of appeal erred in affirming the trial court's allowing of evidence as to plaintiff's business personal property loss into evidence, when plaintiff did not have business personal property coverage. Although the court of appeal found that Lafayette had waived the argument that the policy did not cover business personal property by failing to specifically plead the affirmative defense, the court of appeal also stated that the policy was ambiguous as to whether there was business personal property coverage. We disagree. Under Part A, Coverage, the policy states in pertinent part: A. COVERAGE We will pay for direct physical loss or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss. 1. Covered Property Covered Property, as used in this Coverage Part, means the following types of property for which a Limit of Insurance is shown in the Declarations. a. Building meaning the building or structure described in the Declarations ... b. Your Business Personal Property located in or on the building described in the Declarations or in the open (or in a vehicle) within 100 feet of the described premises, consisting of the following unless otherwise specified in the Declarations or on the Your Business Personal PropertySeparation of Coverage form ... As can be seen from the above policy language, property is only Covered Property if there is a Limit of Insurance shown on the declarations page. On the declarations page for the Commercial Property Coverage Part are listed: Building, with a limit of insurance of $463,000; and Rental Value-With Extra Expense, with a limit of insurance of $18,000. No other covered property is listed on the declarations page with a limit of coverage. Contrary to the court of appeal's reasoning, the absence of a reference to business personal property on the declarations page does not create an ambiguity, rather, it definitively shows that business personal property is not covered property under the policy at issue, as defined by the words of that policy. The courts below erred in awarding plaintiff $31,577 for business personal property loss.