In Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. R.I. Pools, Inc., No. 3:09CV01319 (AWT) (D. Conn. Sept. 22, 2010), insured general contractor RI Pools was sued by swimming pool owners alleging cracking in the concrete walls and floors of swimming pools constructed by RI Pools, and seeking damages for the loss of use of and repair of the pools, “appurtenant structures” also constructed by RI Pools, and surrounding landscaping. The cracking was apparently the result of defective concrete supplied to RI Pools by a third party. RI Pools tendered its defense to its CGL insurer Scottsdale. Scottsdale agreed to defend under reservation of rights and then filed a declaratory judgment action. The federal district trial court granted Scottsdale’s motion for summary judgment. Applying Connecticut law, and without distinguishing between the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify, the court held that, although it was undisputed the alleged damages constituted “property damage,” because the damage was limited to the insured’s defective work, it was not caused by an “occurrence.” With regard to the alleged damages to the “appurtenant structures” and surrounding landscaping, the court states that, because the “appurtenant structures” were part of the insured’s work and the landscaping damage resulted from “necessary repair activities,” this property damage was not caused by an “occurrence.”
Connecticut “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”
