Opinion ID: 786505
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Agricultural Builder's Risk Policy

Text: 16 The only issue regarding the Agricultural builder's risk policy concerns the applicability of Exclusion M, which bars coverage for: 17 [l]oss or damage to property in existence at the commencement of this policy which [1] is not a part of the construction operations insured hereunder and/or [2]for which the value is not included in the total insured value shown in the schedule attached to this policy. 18 Detroit Water Team appeals the district court's determination that this exclusion bars coverage for the loss at issue in this case. 19 It is undisputed that the electrical system was property in existence at the commencement of th[e] policy. Detroit Water Team asserts that the phrase and/or is ambiguous and, therefore, that the exclusion should be read to apply only if both conditions are satisfied — i.e., if both the property is not a part of the construction operations insured hereunder and the value [of the property] is not included in the total insured value shown in the schedule attached to this policy. Detroit Water Team also asserts that, regardless of how and/or is interpreted, neither condition specified in exclusion M is satisfied in this case. We find both assertions unpersuasive. 20 First, we hold that the use of the and/or language in exclusion M unambiguously means that the exclusion applies if either or both of the two specified conditions are met. See, e.g., Michigan Pub. Serv. Co. v. City of Cheboygan, 324 Mich. 309, 37 N.W.2d 116, 129 (1949) (There are occasions where intent may properly be expressed by `and/or,' indicating `both, or either.'); Local Div. 589, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Commonwealth, 666 F.2d 618, 627 (1st Cir.1981) (the words `and/or' commonly mean `the one or the other or both'). 21 Second, we hold that the second condition specified in exclusion M has been satisfied — i.e., the value of the electrical system was not included in the total insured value shown in the schedule attached to th[e] policy. The schedule attached to the policy provides as follows: 22 (a) Estimated Contract Price ............. $ 214,542,000 (b) Soft Costs ........................... $ 2,500,000 (c) Value of Owner Furnished Material .... $ Included (d) Total Insured Value .................. $ 217,042,000 23 The record reveals that the Total Insured Value figure is equivalent to the amount of the actual cash replacement value of the insurable work, or the amount that would be necessary to redo the entire project if everything were somehow destroyed. The undisputed deposition testimony of David May, Vice President and General Counsel of Walsh Construction Company of Illinois — a general contractor that participated in the joint venture with Detroit Water Team in this case — indicates that the Total Insured Value does not include the value of the electrical system contained within the manhole. 24 Because the value of the electrical system was not included in the total insured value shown in the schedule attached to th[e] policy, the district court properly held that exclusion M bars coverage under the Agricultural policy.