BCC Partners, LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1909
___________________________
BCC Partners, LLC
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: April 17, 2025
Filed: June 9, 2025
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.
BCC Partners, LLC (“BCC”) sued Travelers Property Casualty Company of
America (“Travelers”) following a dispute over insurance coverage. After both

-- 1 of 6 --

-2-
parties moved for summary judgment, the district court1 granted summary judgment
to Travelers. BCC appeals, and we affirm.
In June 2015, BCC contracted with Ben F. Blanton Construction, Inc.
(“Blanton”) to build the Vue Project, an apartment complex in Creve Coeur,
Missouri. Their contract required Blanton to obtain insurance. Blanton purchased
an insurance policy (the “Policy”) from Travelers. Blanton was the “Named
Insured” under the Policy, and BCC was an “Additional Named Insured.”
In December 2015, a retaining wall on site failed during construction, causing
damage and delays. Several insurance claims and lawsuits were filed in the
aftermath. Both BCC and Blanton submitted claims under the Policy to Travelers,
which paid $1.3 million to an escrow account, which was then divided between the
recipients. In an arbitration proceeding involving BCC, Blanton, and subcontractors,
BCC recovered an award in excess of $7.2 million from Blanton. Blanton then filed
for bankruptcy. Blanton also sued Travelers to collect costs associated with
removing and replacing the failed retaining wall, resulting in a verdict in Blanton’s
favor of more than $330,000.
We now turn to the dispute at issue here. On June 29, 2016, BCC notified
Travelers of another claim under the Policy, this one for alleged loss of rental income
and soft costs resulting from delays caused by the failed retaining wall, pursuant to
its status as an “Additional Named Insured.” Travelers initially made an advance
payment of $200,000. Throughout 2017 and 2018, Travelers requested, and BCC
provided, documentation relating to this claim. On March 21, 2019, after further
investigation, Travelers denied coverage and reserved the right to recover payment.
More than three years later, on June 6, 2022, BCC demanded $1.4 million,
representing the unpaid amount up to the Policy’s limits for loss of rental income
1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 2 of 6 --

-3-
and soft costs. Travelers declined to make the payment and reiterated its right to
recover the $200,000 advance.
On August 16, 2022, BCC sued Travelers for breach of contract and vexatious
refusal to pay under Missouri law. The district court granted summary judgment to
Travelers on both claims, concluding as a matter of law that BCC was not entitled
to the demanded payments under the Policy. BCC timely appealed.
“We review a grant of summary judgment on an insurance policy
interpretation de novo, applying the same summary judgment standard as the district
court and using state law to determine coverage issues.” First Baptist Church v.
Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 129 F.4th 488, 491 (8th Cir. 2025). “Summary judgment is
appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant,
there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Id. The parties agree that Missouri law governs the
interpretation of the Policy. Under Missouri law, “[i]nsurance policies are read as a
whole.” Dutton v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 454 S.W.3d 319, 324 (Mo. 2015). A
policy is interpreted according to “its plain meaning, or the meaning that would be
attached by an ordinary purchaser of insurance,” and “must be enforced as written
when its language is clear and unambiguous.” Seaton v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 574
S.W.3d 245, 247 (Mo. 2019). “[W]e must endeavor to give each provision a
reasonable meaning and to avoid an interpretation that renders some provisions
useless or redundant.” Axis Surplus Ins. Co. v. TriStar Cos., LLC, 94 F.4th 767, 770
(8th Cir. 2024) (quoting Dibben v. Shelter Ins. Co., 261 S.W.3d 553, 556 (Mo. Ct.
App. 2008)).
We first address BCC’s breach of contract claim. We agree with the district
court that BCC is not covered for its alleged losses of rental income and soft costs.
Under the plain meaning of the Policy, only a “Named Insured” is covered for such
losses. The Policy’s coverage extends to “the actual loss of ‘rental value’ you
sustain” and “your ‘soft costs’” that result from certain construction delays. The
Policy explicitly states twice that “the words ‘you’ and ‘your’ refer to the Named

-- 3 of 6 --

-4-
Insured shown in the Declarations.” Blanton is the only party identified as “Named
Insured” on the Policy’s page marked “Common Policy Declarations.”
An “Additional Named Insured,” on the other hand, has a narrower scope of
coverage. The Policy includes a distinct defined term for “Additional Named
Insured,” which encompasses: (a) “Owners of Covered Property;” (b) “Mortgagees
or loss payees;” (c) “Contractors, sub contractors and sub-sub contractors;” and (d)
“Lessors or lessees.” BCC contends, and Travelers does not dispute, that it qualifies
as an “Additional Named Insured” on the basis of its ownership of “Covered
Property.” Covered Property is defined as the sum of (a) “Permanent Works,” such
as construction equipment and materials, and (b) “Temporary Works,” such as
scaffolds, fencing, trailers, or other “temporary buildings or structures incidental to
completion of the project.” The Policy also specifies that an “Additional Named
Insured” is covered “only to the extent of their financial interest in the Covered
Property.”
Taken together, BCC’s alleged losses of rental income and soft costs are not
covered under the plain meaning of the Policy. BCC is an “Additional Named
Insured,” not a “Named Insured,” per the Policy’s definitions. And the scope of
coverage for an “Additional Named Insured” does not include rental income and soft
costs; only a “Named Insured” is covered for such losses.
BCC’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. First, BCC asks us to read
the Policy’s statements that “the words ‘you’ and ‘your’ refer to the Named Insured
shown in the Declarations” to encompass “Additional Named Insured” parties as
well. At the very least, BCC argues, the language is ambiguous, and ambiguous
language should be construed in its favor. See Wilson v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co.,
472 S.W.3d 579, 587 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015) (“If language in an insurance policy is
ambiguous, the court resolves the ambiguity against the insurer-drafter.”). However,
reading the Policy “as a whole,” Dutton, 454 S.W.3d at 324, the plain language of
the Policy does not conform to BCC’s preferred reading, nor is it ambiguous. See
Seaton, 574 S.W.3d at 247. “Additional Named Insured” is a separate defined term

-- 4 of 6 --

-5-
in the Policy with a specified scope of coverage that is different from that of the
Named Insured. To conclude otherwise would “render[]” the separate definition for
“Additional Named Insured” “useless or redundant.” See Axis, 94 F.4th at 770
(quoting Dibben, 261 S.W.3d at 556).
BCC next urges us to define the term “Additional Named Insured” as an
additional “Named Insured”—in other words, an additional party with the same
rights as a “Named Insured.” For support, BCC points to the definition of
“Additional Named Insured” by the International Risk Management Institute, Inc.
(“IRMI”), “a group that provides insurance-policy analysis to businesses and other
professionals.” Taos Ski Valley, Inc. v. Nova Cas. Co., 705 F. App’x 749, 752 n.6
(10th Cir. 2017). IRMI explains that an “Additional Named Insured” “would have
the same rights and responsibilities as an entity named as an insured in the policy
declarations (other than those rights and responsibilities reserved to the first named
insured).” Additional named insured, Int’l Risk Mgmt. Inst.,
https://www.irmi.com/term/insurance-definitions/additional-named-insured (last
visited June 4, 2025). However, IRMI’s explanation continues: “The term has not
acquired a uniformly agreed upon meaning within the insurance industry” and often
does not include those same rights and responsibilities. Id. Therefore, under BCC’s
own cited authority, an “Additional Named Insured” does not necessarily have “the
same rights and responsibilities” as a “Named Insured.”
BCC further contends that Travelers treated BCC as covered for lost rental
income and soft costs for several years before reneging, as demonstrated by the
initial $200,000 advance and other documentation requests and communications
between 2016 and 2022. However, Travelers repeatedly emphasized that it
advanced $200,000 in anticipation of receiving further documentation substantiating
BCC’s claims, and reserved its right to fully recover the advance. Even BCC admits
that the $200,000 advance “may not be sufficient to create coverage where no
coverage existed.” This argument therefore fails as well.

-- 5 of 6 --

-6-
Finally, BCC argues that it would not make sense to read the Policy in such a
way that only Blanton, and not BCC, is insured for lost rental income and soft costs
because those costs are inapplicable to Blanton as the Vue Project’s developer. BCC
points to the $5,317 premium paid for $1.5 million of coverage for lost rental value
and soft costs. Why, BCC asks, would coverage for those losses have been included
in the Policy if the only party covered for those types of losses, Blanton, would not
even incur those types of losses? We acknowledge the possibility that BCC, and
perhaps even Travelers, anticipated that BCC would be covered for lost rental
income and soft costs. However, under Missouri law, the Policy “must be enforced
as written when its language is clear and unambiguous.” Seaton, 574 S.W.3d at 247.
And the Policy’s language is clear and unambiguous: BCC is an “Additional Named
Insured,” an “Additional Named Insured” is distinct from a “Named Insured,” and
an “Additional Named Insured” is not covered for lost rental value and soft costs.
As the district court said, we “must enforce the contract before [us], not the contract
[BCC] wishes had been signed.” Accordingly, the Policy does not cover BCC for
rental income lost and soft costs incurred following the construction delays at the
Vue Project. Travelers thus did not breach the Policy by declining to make the $1.4
million payment to BCC.
Because BCC’s breach of contract claim fails, and Travelers thus has no duty
to cover BCC’s alleged losses, BCC’s claim for vexatious refusal to pay necessarily
fails as well. See BSI Constructors, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 705 F.3d 330, 335
(8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Fischer v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 388 S.W.3d 181, 191
(Mo. Ct. App. 2012)).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 6 of 6 --