Whether the commercial insurance policy (the Policy) at issue covered business-income losses resulting from a sewer backup

Holding that the plain language of the Policy that plaintiff-Winfire held with defendant-Massachusetts Bay excluded coverage for the type of claim at issue (business-income losses for a sewer backup), the court reversed the trial court’s judgment for plaintiff. There was “no dispute that evaluating Winfire’s claim for business-income losses begins with the” Business Income (And Extra Expense) Coverage Form (BI form). “The BI form governs business-income coverage and states that a claimed business-income loss ‘must be caused by or result from a Covered Cause of Loss.’” Interpreting the applicable provisions, the court held “that the Policy explicitly excluded coverage for business-income losses from a sewer backup.” The court further concluded that “Winfire’s argument misunderstands the scope of the” Gold Property Broadening Endorsement’s sewer backup coverage. The court noted that the “sewer backup amendment was added to ‘Additional Coverages’ in the 'Building and Personal Property Coverage Form'; it was not added to the BI form.” It concluded that the “Policy unambiguously excluded coverage for Winfire’s business-income losses stemming from the” sewer backup. It noted that it “must enforce ‘clear and specific exclusions’ as written.” Remanded for entry of an order granting defendant summary judgment.