DeBartolo v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 2007 VT 31

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the insured in a dispute over fire coverage for a restaurant that reopened during the policy period. The court held that the policy was ambiguous as to whether coverage ended when the restaurant reopened and construed the ambiguity in favor of coverage. It also upheld the finding that the insured did not intentionally conceal the reopening from the insurer.

Holdings

1. The policy did not unambiguously provide that property coverage ended when the restaurant reopened. At most, the policy was ambiguous on that issue, and the ambiguity was construed in favor of coverage; therefore, summary judgment for DeBartolo was proper.
2. The superior court did not clearly err in finding that DeBartolo did not intentionally conceal the restaurant's reopening. Credible evidence supported the finding, and the Supreme Court would not reweigh the trial court's credibility determination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the insurance policy unambiguously limited property coverage to the period during which the restaurant remained vacant.
2. Whether the superior court clearly erred in finding that DeBartolo did not intentionally conceal the restaurant's reopening in violation of the policy's concealment provision.

Disposition

affirmed