Summary: Property, liability, inland marine, and other insurance forms, both commercial and personal lines, contain the terms "building" and "structure" without definition. As a result, whether an insured has coverage for its loss to property often cannot be determined until a court decides the issue, and no one knows for sure what that conclusion will be.

If a building is a structure but not all structures are buildings, what might be a better way to prepare coverage forms so that policyholders do not get a rude awakening after a loss occurs? Can it be said that reference to buildings or structures is anachronistic and now is the time for a change? This article, at the outset, asks more questions than it answers. It then delves into some of the court cases differentiating between the two terms (it appears that the majority of cases have ended up where no coverage was provided).

One other point is that, while structures can encompass many kinds of things, the courts appear to think that structures resemble buildings, which means that the meaning of "structures" is much narrower than one otherwise believes may be the case.