Oakdale Mall Assoc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 12-1148 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseOakdale and Cincinnati disputed whether the commercial property insurance policy Oakdale purchased from Cincinnati covered a loss suffered by Oakdale in August 2009. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Cincinnati, concluding that the policy excluded Oakdale's damages where the district court accepted Oakdale's specific calculations of common area and decided that they were insufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find the vacancy provision of the policy was met.
Court Description: Civil case - Insurance. District court did not err in determining that the insured's property was vacant as that term was defined in the policy in question.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.