The court looked to the policy's insurable interest provision, defined as "[t]he interest of the Insured in all real property, including but not limited to property owned, controlled, used, leased or intended for use by the Insured," to decide which coverage should pertain.

 Zurich stated that the provision refers to a property interest such as ownership or tenancy, but the court said that only an insurable interest is required for coverage, not a property interest. While it was clear that ABM did not own or lease the common areas and premises of the WTC tenants, the court determined that ABM did control, use, and intend to use those areas.

 Because the court concluded that ABM controlled the premises, it thus found that the contingent business interruption provision did not apply. The court said that the contingent business income provision applies in "events that prevent entities from supplying goods to, or receiving goods from, the insured"—it applied to properties not operated by the insured.

 Likewise, the court concluded for the same reasons that the leader property provision was inapplicable. The court awarded ABM summary judgment on its business interruption claims and remanded the portions of the appeal dealing with civil authority coverage and extra expense to the lower court for further consideration.