Sept. 2, 2011) (denying extra expense coverage under the first two definitions of extra expenses because the insured terminated, as opposed to suspended, its business operations, and the expenses did not meet the third definition because the expense did not reduce losses otherwise payable under the extra expense provision or business income provision); Nassau Gallery, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. Civ.A. 00C-05-034, 2003 WL 21223843, at *3 (Del.Super.Ct. April 17, 2003) (denying coverage under the extra expense provision for reconstruction expenses for a rented building, such as lighting and other fixtures, because such expenses were exclusively covered by the property provision); Thompson v. Threshermen’s Mut. Ins. Co., 172 Wis.2d 275, 493 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Ct.App.1992) (<HOLDING>). Cincinnati Insurance ignores the fact that
holding construction of new building was part of a grocers business holding that rental value was properly included as part of damages on action for breach of building contract where contractor failed to complete building within contracted time holdingextra expense coverage for the construction of a new building when the insured previously rented the building contravened the parties intent holding contracts for the construction or sale of a completed building fall outside the ucc holding that the measure of damages for breaching a building construction contract is ordinarily such sum as is required to make the building conform to the contract