Opinion ID: 789143
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Common Areas, Tenants' Premises, and HVAC System

Text: 26 Because ABM did not own or lease the common areas and the premises of the other tenants, whether they controlled, used, or intended to use these areas is the relevant inquiry. We believe ABM used the common areas and the premises of the other tenants in the WTC within the meaning of the Insurable Interest provision. Hence, summary judgment for ABM is appropriate on this issue. 27 The district court defined use as to carry out a purpose or action by means of. Zurich, 265 F.Supp.2d at 305 ( quoting Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged) 2524 (2002)). The trial court concluded that ABM did not use the common areas and other tenants' premises in the WTC complex because it could accomplish its purpose of cleaning and earning income with mop[s] and broom[s]. Id. Thus, according to the district court, the premises in question were the locations of ABM's acts, not the means through which the acts were accomplished. Id. 28 We disagree with the district court's application of this definition. We think instead that the plain meaning [of these words] unambiguously includes the actual situation for which coverage is sought. Coregis Ins. Co. v. Am. Health Found., 241 F.3d 123, 129 (2d Cir.2001). The existence and configuration of the common areas and tenants' premises were vital to the execution of ABM's business purpose. These areas and premises were the means by which ABM derived its income and were as essential to that function as ABM's cleaning tools. Following the definition cited by the trial court, ABM therefore used this property. Contrary to the district court's view, ABM's use of other items in accomplishing its purpose makes these areas of the complex no less important to ABM's tasks. 29 The conclusion reached by the court below that the common areas and leased premises in the WTC were merely the locations rather than the means of ABM's work not only overlooks the instrumentality of the property in ABM's processes, but categorically disfavors providers of physical labor. The furnishing of physical services usually entails entering the space of another. To deny ABM's loss-of-income coverage simply because its income is derived from labor that occurs outside of its own cubicles and offices artificially excludes service providers when the contract itself does not limit coverage in such a manner. The nature of ABM's business requires movement from its own leased spaces onto another's property. 30 To give an example, a reasonable person would not contest that a hypothetical accounting firm uses the offices it occupies. Such a person should also conclude a janitorial and electrical service provider uses the spaces it services because, in both situations, it is the space or property that engenders productivity. The district court erroneously held that ABM's usage was confined to the offices that ABM itself occupied. ABM, unlike the accounting firm, does not engage in predominantly mental labor and is thus prevented from working solely within the confines of its own offices. Its usage necessarily extends beyond those boundaries. It would be wrong to privilege the hypothetical accounting firm's, over ABM's, relationship with the property such that the former entity could be said to use the property while the latter would not. In other words, it makes no sense to deny that ABM uses these premises simply because they are also used by another when the nature of ABM's work compels this duality. 31 Further, even if ABM did not carry out their purpose of running a successful business through the common areas and leased offices in the complex, it can still be said that ABM used these areas following other common dictionary definitions of the term. Clearly, ABM had recourse to and enjoyment of these areas and indeed could avail itself of all areas of the World Trade Center where it performed operations. Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged) 2523 (2002). Additionally, ABM applied all areas of the WTC to its advantage, thus put[ting] the characteristics of the property into action and into its service. Id. (defining the intransitive verb use as to put into action or service: have recourse to or enjoyment of).