Texas “professional services” exclusion
In Admiral Ins. Co. v. Ford, No. 09-50671 (5th Cir. May 21, 2010), Exco hired insured Ford to create an oil well drilling plan and assist in the drilling of the well. Following a blowout in the well, Exco sued Ford for breach of contract failure to prevent the blowout.
South Carolina “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”
In Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. R Design Construction Co., LLC, No. 2:07-1890-JFA (D. S.C. May 24, 2010), Jade Street hired insured R Design to serve as general contractor for the construction of a condominium. R Design in turn subcontracted with Catterson for the framing. During construction, an inspection determined
Hawaii “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”
In Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., No. 29402 (Haw. Ct. App. May 19, 2010), Hilton hired Hawaiian Dredging to serve as general contractor for the construction of a hotel. Hawaiian Dredging in turn hired Group to serve as subcontractor for the EIFS system and other components. Following completion,
Texas “your work” exclusion
In Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. JHP Development, Inc., 557 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 2009), the insured was the general contractor for a condominium project. As called for in the contract, the insured completed the model unit but left the other units unfinished until they were sold and the owner selected
South Carolina “your work” exclusion
Endorsement replacing exclusion l. effectively deleting subcontractor work exception did not apply to flooding damage insured general contractor held liable for because flooding related damage to plaintiff’s “residence resulted from exposure to overdeveloped wetlands adjacent to it—a problem created by neither [insured] nor its subcontractors.” Jessco, Inc. v. Builders Mut.
South Carolina “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” and “your work” exclusion
In Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kalman, No.: 2:07-CV-3609-PMD (D. S.C. Dec. 8, 2009)(Duffy), the insured general contractor was sued by the homeowner seeking damages because of moisture intrusion related property damage, including mold growth, to the home only allegedly caused by construction defects. Most of the defective work was
South Carolina “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” ; “your work,” “expected or intended,” “impaired property,” and sistership exclusions; “get to” costs
In Auto Owners Ins. Co., Inc. v. Newman, 684 S.E.2d 541 (S.C. 2009), the homeowner sued the insured homebuilder for property damage to parts of the home caused by water penetration through defective stucco siding applied by a subcontractor. The complaint alleged breach of contract, negligence, and breach of warranty.
Ohio “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” and “your work” exclusion
In Fortney & Weygandt, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mut. Ins. Co., No. 05-4031 (6th Cir. Feb 12, 2010), the insured general contractor was hired to build a restaurant. Prior to completion, shifting foundation soil damaged the building’s underground utility lines, requiring demolition and reconstruction. The CGL insurer denied a defense
Kentucky “occurrence”
In Acuity v. Krumpelman Builders, Inc., No. 09-9-DLB (D. Ky. April 8, 2010), the general contractor insured was sued by the homeowner for property damage to the house caused by defective foundation. Finding Motorist Mutual indistinguishable, the trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer on the duty to defend
Kentucky “occurrence”
In Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 306 S.W.3d 69 (Ky. 2010), Elite Homes built a home for the Mintmans. Five years after completion, the Mintmans sued Elite for construction defects. Motorists, Elites’ CGL insurer during the period of construction, defended Elite, settled the suit, and, with an