This is true even when the rerouting may require the taking of a portion of the business owner’s property at the same time. See Sand Bar Corp. v. Vt. State Transp. Bd., 145 Vt. fact that the highway project required the taking of landowners’ property does not make all losses resulting from the project, including losses resulting from the placement of the median strip, compensable. We note that the rule established by Wilson and the other out-of-state cases cited by landowners represents the view of a minority of jurisdictions; the more established principle is that property owners can recover for only those losses that result directly from the taking of the owners’ land. See, e.g., Div. of Admin., State Dep’t of Transp. v. Capital Plaza, Inc., 397 So. 2d 682, 683 (Fla. 1981) (<HOLDING>); Painter v. Dep’t of Roads, 131 N.W.2d 587,
holding that a landowner whose property was taken in a highway widening project could recover only for the lost land and not for losses caused by traffic islands constructed as part of the same project holding that loss of access resulting from a median strip constructed as part of a highway widening project was a proper consideration because any factor that has a present quantifiable effect on the market value of the property is proper as an element of damages holding that a landowner who lost a strip of property to a highway widening project could not recover losses caused by concurrent placement of a median strip because when less than the entire property is taken compensation for damage to the remainder can be awarded only if such damage is caused by the taking and cjonstruction of the median not the taking caused the alleged damage holding that a landowner could recover for placement of a median strip that could not have occurred but for the taking of the landowners property because the inquiry is how much has the particular public improvement decreased the fair market value of the property taking into consideration the use for which the land was taken and all the reasonably probable effects of its devotion to that use holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations