The court determined there was coverage for Vale Fox’s loss but left the issue of valuation to be determined another day. The DecisionThe court’s decision offers a detailed roadmap for how collapse coverage operates in commercial property policies. Here, the court rejected Central Mutual’s narrow reading that would have effectively stripped collapse coverage for personal property of any practical meaning. Second, the case highlights an important rule of policy construction: specific coverage grants prevail over general exclusions. In short, Vale Fox offers policyholders an encouraging ruling on collapse coverage but also a cautionary lesson on valuation disputes—an area where precise drafting and advocacy can make all the difference.