MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER This case involves an insurance coverage dispute regarding an incident at 301-375 West Onondaga Street, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) property that allegedly took place on July 13, 2017. Currently before the Court is Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Company, and Ohio Security Insurance Company’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 20), and Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 27). For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted, Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied, and the Court orders the clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and to close this case. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is appropriate only where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Alexander & Alexander Servs., Inc. v. These Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 136 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 1998). II. BACKGROUND FACTS Defendants1 issued a commercial property policy of insurance (Dkt. No. 20-6, the “Policy”) to Plaintiff for the period between May 25, 2017, and May 25, 2018. (Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts, Dkt. No. 20-9 at 1.2) Plaintiff submitted a property loss notice to Defendants on July 13, 2017, regarding a water loss event it had suffered that same day. (Id. at 2.) On July 14, 2017, Defendants’ property claims specialist inspected the premises with Plaintiff’s principal and its public adjuster. (Id. at 3.) On July 19, 2017, Defendants issued a reservation of rights letter to Plaintiff. (Id. at 7.) Defendants thereafter hired Adam D. Cabral, P.E. (“Cabral”) to assist in determining the cause of the loss. (Id. at 8.) Cabral inspected the premises on August 17, 2017, and issued a report to Defendants on August 24, 2017. (Id. at 9 (citing Dkt. No. 20-4).) Based on Cabral’s report and its own investigation, Defendants issued a partial coverage denial letter to Plaintiff dated August 30, 2017. (Dkt. No. 20-9 at 16 (citing Dkt. No. 20-7 at 9-12).) Defendants determined that coverage for the loss was limited to $25,000.00 pursuant to the BP 35 09 11 endorsement of the Policy. (Dkt. No. 20-9 at 17; see also Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts, Dkt. No. 28 at
