The Eighth Circuit determined that business property in storage before the insured could transport the property was covered under the "Newly Acquired or Constructed Property" extension of the commercial property policy. Amera-Seiki Corp. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14893 (8th Cir. July 23, 2013).

   The insured imported computerized industrial equipment for customers in the United States. It purchased a vertical lathe from a manufacturer in Taiwan for delivery to a customer in Illinois. The lathe was shipped to the Port of Los Angeles where it was stored in a terminal to await a flatbed truck to transport it to Illinois. The insured paid $1,950 to store the lathe at the terminal.

   Two weeks after arrival of the lathe, it fell off a tractor as it was being moved to a location from which it could be loaded onto the flatbed. The lathe was destroyed. A claim was filed with Cincinnati. Most of the claim was denied because Cincinnati deemed the coverage for newly acquired property did not apply. Only transportation coverage in the amount of $10,000 was paid under the policy. 

   The extension provided that if coverage existed for Business Personal Property, the insurance could be extended to cover loss to "Business personal property, including such property that you newly acquire, at any location you acquire other than at fairs, trade shows or exhibitions."

   The insured sued and motions for summary judgment were filed. The district court denied Cincinnati's motion and granted summary judgment to the insured.

   On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The extension was ambiguous and had to be construed in favor of the insured. Cincinnati argued that the insured did not "acquire the terminal under the plain definition of "acquire" because it did not own, lease, possess or exercise control over the terminal. The temporary storage arrangements at the terminal were too passive and too transient to qualify the terminal as a location the insured had acquired under any reasonable interpretation of the newly acquired property extension. The insured, on the other hand, argued that the meaning of "acquire" was broader than Cincinnati contended. Having paid the storage fee to the terminal, the insured sufficiently got, obtained, possessed, and controlled – thus acquiring – the location at the terminal where the lathe was damaged. 

   Given the two competing definitions, the court found the extension of coverage to "any location you acquire" was ambiguous. Consequently, the extension was construed in the insured's favor.