On June 9, 2025, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Travelers Property Casualty Company of America in a closely watched dispute over coverage for construction delays at a Missouri apartment complex, ruling that developer BCC Partners, LLC wasn’t entitled to a $1.4 million payout for lost rental income and soft costs.
The decision brings an end to BCC’s legal challenge, which centered on its status under a builder’s risk insurance policy tied to the Vue Project in Creve Coeur. Back in 2015, BCC hired Ben F. Blanton Construction, Inc. to build the apartment complex. As part of their contract, Blanton secured insurance from Travelers. While Blanton was listed as the “Named Insured,” BCC was designated as an “Additional Named Insured.”
Things took a turn in December of that year when a retaining wall collapsed mid-construction. The fallout caused significant delays and triggered multiple claims. Travelers initially paid $1.3 million into escrow. BCC later recovered over $7.2 million in arbitration against Blanton, who went bankrupt soon after. Blanton also successfully sued Travelers for over $330,000 in costs related to the wall repairs.
In 2016, BCC submitted a separate claim to Travelers, this time for losses related to rental income and soft costs stemming from the delays. Travelers advanced $200,000 while it reviewed the claim. But after back-and-forth over the next few years, the insurer ultimately denied coverage in 2019 and reserved the right to recover the advance. In 2022, BCC demanded the full $1.4 million coverage limit. Travelers again refused and reiterated its position.
That led BCC to sue for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay under Missouri law. But both the trial court and now the appeals court found that BCC simply wasn’t entitled to the coverage it was seeking.
At the heart of the ruling is the language in the insurance policy. The court pointed to provisions stating that coverage for rental income and soft costs applies to losses “you sustain” and “your soft costs,” with “you” and “your” defined specifically as the “Named Insured”—in this case, Blanton. BCC’s role as an “Additional Named Insured” came with narrower rights. The policy clearly stated that such parties were only covered to the extent of their financial interest in the physical construction work—defined as “Permanent Works” and “Temporary Works.”
In short, the court said, BCC wasn’t covered for financial losses like rent or soft costs related to delays, because that protection was only extended to the party named in the policy declarations. The court also dismissed BCC’s arguments that Travelers’ earlier advance and years of communication created an expectation of coverage, noting that the insurer had consistently reserved its rights.
BCC also tried to rely on an industry source, the International Risk Management Institute, which offers a broader interpretation of “Additional Named Insured.” But even that reference acknowledged the term lacks a standard definition across the industry, and the court stuck to the plain wording of the policy at hand.
For insurers and risk managers, the ruling is a reminder of how courts enforce policy distinctions between different types of insureds—especially in complex construction projects where multiple parties share coverage. It also underscores the value of reading endorsements and declarations closely, as assumptions about what’s covered can fall apart under scrutiny.
With the decision now final, BCC is left without recourse under the policy for its delay-related losses. The ruling offers insurers a clear affirmation that policy definitions—when clearly drafted—can hold up even under the weight of costly disputes.
