Opinion ID: 815102
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Space Oakdale Sought to Lease

Text: Oakdale faults the district court for failing to include in its calculation of the mall’s “[o]ccupied space . . . that space for which Oakdale was actively seeking tenants.” Oakdale contends “[t]he language of the policy should be interpreted, with regard to a shopping center, to define ‘vacancy’ as a shopping center that has no tenants and is not seeking new tenants.” In Oakdale’s view, by posting “a large sign outside the mall advertising available space for rent” and “seeking out new tenants, [Oakdale] was using the property to conduct normal business operations” in satisfaction of the vacancy provision. We agree with the district court that Oakdale’s interpretation of the policy “would render the vacancy clause of the policy meaningless.” The primary purpose of the vacancy provision is to reduce the risk of loss by requiring a physical presence footage—results from a double counting of those areas and already is included in the 34,595 sq. ft. of common area calculation. -8- at the property to help secure the property from vandals and thieves. Under Oakdale’s interpretation of the policy—“[a] shopping center may not be ‘vacant’ if the owner is trying to rent the space”—the mall could be completely vacant, but would be deemed fully occupied for purposes of the vacancy provision if the owner simply posted a sign outside or placed an advertisement online or in the newspaper. Oakdale’s interpretation is unreasonable, bordering on the absurd.