The general contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment successfully established that damage to footings in place before the policy period was covered after the collapse of a building. Big D Builders, Inc. v. Am Zurich Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72012 (D. Idaho March 31, 2026).

Big D was the general contractor for building a new airplane hangar by erecting a 38,000 square foot structure. Before Big D began construction, the site of the hangar did not contain any pre-existing structures or buildings. Before completion of the hangar, it collapsed and caused extensive property damage.

The builder’s risk policy issued by Zurich covered certain aspects of the construction project for the policy period December 28, 2023, to December 28, 2024. Zurich accepted coverage for most of the damage but not for damage to footings and columns installed prior to the start date of the policy.

Big D filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking coverage for the footings and columns. Zurich filed a cross-motion.

The policy defined “Covered Property” as “Property which has been installed or is to be installed in any ‘commercial structure’ . . .” This included “[f]oundations of buildings and foundations of structures in the course of construction.” “Covered Property” did not include “[e]xisting buildings or structures to which an addition, alteration, improvement, or repair is being made, unless specifically endorsed.” Zurich denied coverage because it reasoned that the footings and columns were “existing buildings or structures” as defined in the policy.

The court first considered the definition of “Covered Property”, noting that it included that which “has been installed” or is to be installed in a commercial structure. Zurich argued that implicit in the “has been installed’ language of the covered property definition was that the property at issue was installed after the start date of the policy. Accepting this argument, however, would require reading into the policy language a limitation that was not there. The actual language of the policy stated that property that has been installed was covered.

Zurich next argued that reading the covered property definition to include property installed prior to the policy’s start date would mean that any property installed on the building site at any time would be covered. However, the property would have to have been part of the hangar project, as this was a single-structure policy written to cover the risk associated with building the hangar.

Big D met its burden of showing the footings and columns “had been installed” at the time of the collapse. The parties did not dispute that the footings and columns were part of the future hangar and were installed on the property designated by the policy for building the hangar. Bid D had demonstrated that the footings and columns fit within the unambiguous definition of covered property.

The burden shifted to Zurich to show that the footings and columns were unambiguously excluded from coverage. Zurich first argued that the footings and columns were excluded because they were “[e]xisting structures to which an addition, alteration, improvement or repair is being made, unless specifically endorsed.” The footings and columns, however, were not “structures.” “Foundations of structures” indicated that foundations, such as the footings and columns, were a part of a structure, not structures themselves.

Second, the footings and columns were a foundational part of the hangar as a whole, so characterizing the hangar as an “addition” or “improvement” to the footings and columns pushed the meanings of those terms beyond their common usage.

Even if the court found that policy language to be ambiguous, it would still conclude that the footings and columns at issue were covered by the policy. If an ambiguity existed in the policy, the court, not a jury, should resolve the ambiguity, and do so in favor of the insured.

Big D’s motion for partial summary judgment was granted and Zurich’s cross-motion was denied.