In Part C, Increased Cost of Construction Coverage, the placement of the comma after "building" clearly indicates that a "building" ordinance or law is separate from a "zoning or land use" ordinance or law, and that the two items are covered. Again referring to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, an "act" is "the formal product of a legislative body: statute." The ADA falls within the scope of a "building law."

When presented with claims for new construction of mandated elevators, ramps, or restroom facilities, for example, insurance companies may attempt to deny coverage on the grounds that this was never the intent of the endorsement. They may argue that the endorsement was intended to provide, in event of a loss, construction to code. Rebuilding with earthquake-resistant materials is an example of this.

Although the ADA is too recent to have brought about any definitive court cases, our opinion is that, should the matter go to court, coverage questions will be resolved in favor of the insured. There are two reasons for this. First, any ambiguity of language is resolved in favor of the insured.  Second, Part B of the endorsement clearly excludes coverage for enforcement of any law or ordinance requiring clean up, etc., of "pollutants." There are no other exclusions of coverage in the endorsement.