The 10 90 edition does not include this breakdown; it just states that a building is vacant when it does not contain enough business personal property to conduct customary operations. If all of these occupancies are in the same building and only the cold-storage portion is vacant, then technically the building contains enough business personal property to conduct customary operations, even if the cold-storage operation is no longer one of the customary operations. It is kind of a sticky way out of the vacancy clause, but an argument could be made for it not being applied in this instance.

In the second scenario, an insured with three separated buildings located on the same premises insured all of the buildings under a blanket policy. A theft loss occurred in one of the buildings, which at the time of loss had been vacant for more than 60 consecutive days. The other two buildings located on the same premises were not vacant.

Would this loss be covered under the Building and Personal Property Coverage Form (CP 00 10 10 90) and the Cause of Loss Special Form (CP 10 30 10 90)?

The CP 00 10 10 90 states, in the vacancy provision: “If the building where loss or damage occurs has been vacant for more than 60 consecutive days before the loss or damage, we will…not pay for any loss or damage caused by any of the following [including] theft.”

Because the building where loss or damage occurred was vacant, even though other buildings on the same blanket policy were not, this clause would prevent recovery because it addresses only the building where loss or damage occurred.

Unlike the previous example, with different occupancies in one building, this insured had one entirely vacant building among other occupied buildings. Customary business could continue in the building with just one vacant occupancy, but no customary operations could continue in the totally vacant building.