The language of a contract can have a lot to do with the ability to hold someone liable in a proceeding. This is extremely important for policies that include indemnity clauses or opt to change a policy over time to decrease the amount of coverage. In the case of Wesco Inc. Co. v. 333 W 46th Street Corp., there was a dispute over whether the definition of “structure” includes “tents.”
In Wesco, the plaintiff alleged that they did not have a duty to defend the defendant who sustained an injury when he fell off a ladder while disassembling a commercial tent in a lot owned by the defendant. The policy issued from the plaintiff to the defendant excludes “bodily injury,” “property damage,” and “personal and advertising injury” that could come from (1) change, alteration, or modification of the size of any building or structure (2) movement of any building or structure” (3) “construction or erection of any new building or structure” and (4) demolition of any building or structure.” The court considered whether “structure” included a tent. Prior courts have set the standard that contracts need to be interpreted by the court narrowly according to their “plain and ordinary meaning,” with the burden being on the insurance company to state in a way that is “clear and unmistakable”
The court turned to the dictionary, concluding that a tent falls under the definition of a “structure.” In addition, the court looked at how “tent” has been defined in other cases and regulations, which indicates that tent and structure have been given the same definitions in the context of Labor Law disputes. This case highlights how basic language and who is determining the definition of a crucial term can change the scope of liability.
Thanks to Jordan Joachim-James for her contribution to this post. Please contact Heather Aquino with any questions.