Hard Hat Case Notes

• Pages: 59-63
• Date: 01 January 2026
• Published date: 01 January 2026
• Author: Brandon R. Clark,Hugh D. Brown
• Subject Matter: Administrative & Public Law

Published in The Construction Lawyer Volume 45, Number 1, ©2026 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with

permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any

means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.

Forum on Construction Law The Construction Lawyer Winter 2026

59

By Brandon R. Clark and Hugh D. Brown

Brandon R. Clark is counsel at Saul Ewing LLP. He is a member of the firm’s Construction Practice

Group and is based in the firm’s Chicago office. He also is licensed and practices in Washington, D.C.

Hugh D. Brown is a shareholder at Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson, P.A., in Minneapolis. He is a

member of the firm’s Construction Law Department.

What’s in a Name? Eighth Circuit Draws Important Distinction Between Named Insureds and

Additional Named Insureds.

In December 2015, during construction of a luxury apartment complex in the posh bedroom community

of Creve Coeur just outside of St. Louis, Missouri, a retaining wall failed, causing property damage

and project delays. The project owner, BCC Partners, LLC, was an Additional Named Insured under its

general contractor’s insurance policy. However, both the US District Court for the District of Missouri

and the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit have held there is a meaningful dierence between

an “Additional Named Insured” and a “Named Insured”—meaningful enough to deny BCC Partners

coverage for $1.4 million in lost rental income and other soft costs arising from the failed retaining wall.

This result demonstrates the outsized impact that can result from specif‌ic word choice in policy language,

oers a reminder to closely review project insurance coverage, and may even provide a cautionary tale

with respect to litigation strategy.

Both courts’ rulings relied heavily on the black-letter interpretative principles of enforcing contracts

as they are written, according to the ordinary meaning of their phrasing, when considered as a whole.

Applying these principles, the Eighth Circuit’s affirmance seemed a foregone conclusion. The policy

covered “actual loss of rental value you sustain” and “your soft costs that result from . . . construction

delays.” BCC Partners, LLC v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 140 4th 465, 468 (8th Cir. 2025)

(emphasis added). It further defined “you” and “your” as the “Named Insured.” Id. The policy contained

separate definitions for “Named Insured” and “Additional Named Insureds.” Id. And its coverage for an

“Additional Named Insured” was expressly limited to its “financial interest in the Covered Property.” Id.

BCC Partners offered four arguments as to why its loss nevertheless should have been covered. First, BCC

Partners argued that the definitions of “you” and “your” either included an “Additional Named Insured”

or were ambiguous enough that the court should have construed the policy in favor of BCC Partners. Id.

at 469. Since the policy twice stated that “you” and “your” referred to the “Named Insured shown in the

Declarations” and neither “Additional Named Insured” nor BCC Partners was listed in the Declarations,

the court’s reasoning on this argument appeared sound.

Next, BCC Partners argued that its status should be construed as that of an additional “Named Insured”

rather than as an “Additional Named Insured.” Id. Seeing as how the policy contained separate

definitions for “Named Insured” and “Additional Named Insured,” the court dismissed this argument.

Third, BCC Partners argued that by making a $200,000 advance payment and by continuing to engage

with BCC Partners for several years about the claim, the insurer effectively forfeited its ability to deny

coverage. Id. This argument runs counter to the established practice of insurers reserving their right to

deny coverage while they investigate claims. Moreover, even BCC Partners conceded that the advance

HARD HAT CASE NOTESHard Hat Case Notes