On June 9, 2025, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Travelers Property Casualty Company of America in a carefully watched dispute over protection for development delays at a Missouri house complicated, ruling that developer BCC Partners, LLC wasn’t entitled to a $1.4 million payout for misplaced rental revenue and gentle prices.
The determination brings an finish to BCC’s authorized problem, which centered on its standing below a builder’s danger insurance coverage coverage tied to the Vue Project in Creve Coeur. Back in 2015, BCC employed Ben F. Blanton Construction, Inc. to construct the house complicated. As a part of their contract, Blanton secured insurance coverage from Travelers. While Blanton was listed because the “Named Insured,” BCC was designated as an “Additional Named Insured.”
Things took a flip in December of that yr when a retaining wall collapsed mid-construction. The fallout brought on important delays and triggered a number of claims. Travelers initially paid $1.3 million into escrow. BCC later recovered over $7.2 million in arbitration in opposition to Blanton, who went bankrupt quickly after. Blanton additionally efficiently sued Travelers for over $330,000 in prices associated to the wall repairs.
In 2016, BCC submitted a separate declare to Travelers, this time for losses associated to rental revenue and gentle prices stemming from the delays. Travelers superior $200,000 whereas it reviewed the declare. But after back-and-forth over the following few years, the insurer in the end denied protection in 2019 and reserved the suitable to get better the advance. In 2022, BCC demanded the total $1.4 million protection restrict. Travelers once more refused and reiterated its place.
That led BCC to sue for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay below Missouri regulation. But each the trial court docket and now the appeals court docket discovered that BCC merely wasn’t entitled to the protection it was in search of.
At the center of the ruling is the language within the insurance coverage coverage. The court docket pointed to provisions stating that protection for rental revenue and gentle prices applies to losses “you sustain” and “your soft costs,” with “you” and “your” outlined particularly because the “Named Insured”—on this case, Blanton. BCC’s position as an “Additional Named Insured” got here with narrower rights. The coverage clearly acknowledged that such events have been solely coated to the extent of their monetary curiosity within the bodily development work—outlined as “Permanent Works” and “Temporary Works.”
In quick, the court docket mentioned, BCC wasn’t coated for monetary losses like hire or gentle prices associated to delays, as a result of that safety was solely prolonged to the get together named within the coverage declarations. The court docket additionally dismissed BCC’s arguments that Travelers’ earlier advance and years of communication created an expectation of protection, noting that the insurer had constantly reserved its rights.
BCC additionally tried to depend on an business supply, the International Risk Management Institute, which affords a broader interpretation of “Additional Named Insured.” But even that reference acknowledged the time period lacks a typical definition throughout the business, and the court docket caught to the plain wording of the coverage at hand.
For insurers and danger managers, the ruling is a reminder of how courts implement coverage distinctions between various kinds of insureds—particularly in complicated development initiatives the place a number of events share protection. It additionally underscores the worth of studying endorsements and declarations carefully, as assumptions about what’s coated can disintegrate below scrutiny.
With the choice now closing, BCC is left with out recourse below the coverage for its delay-related losses. The ruling affords insurers a transparent affirmation that coverage definitions—when clearly drafted—can maintain up even below the burden of expensive disputes.