We agree with the motion court that the property on which occurred the accident that gave rise to the underlying action is an "[i]nsured location" within the meaning of the subject policy, which defines that term as, inter alia, "[v]acant land, other than farm land, owned by or rented to an `insured,'" and "[l]and owned by or rented to an `insured' on which a one or two family dwelling is being built as a residence for an `insured'" ( see White v Continental Cas. Co., 9 NY3d 264, 267). We also agree that the word "built" encompasses the work being done here, i.e., the addition of a second floor to the building located on the property. In any event, to the extent that that term is ambiguous, the ambiguity must be resolved in defendants' favor ( id.).