Where the owner of a mall sought coverage under a commercial property insurance policy for the theft of copper coils from rooftop heating units, the district court could rely on the mall’s calculations of the size of common areas, and the court properly found that the insurer could deny coverage under a policy provision that excluded coverage from theft or vandalism when the mall was not occupied to the extent specified in the policy.
Judgment is affirmed.
Oakdale Mall Associates v. Cincinnati Insurance Company (MLW No. 64548/Case No. 12-1148 – 10 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Riley, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Magnuson, J. (Paul P. Hasty Jr., Overland Park, Kansas, argued for appellant) (Anthony Kane, Minneapolis, argued for appellee).
Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)