News & Analysis as of

Insurance Litigation Faulty Workmanship Policy Exclusions

Cozen O'Connor

Claims Notes: April 2024

Cozen O'Connor on

Some jurisdictions consider the ISO-form "bodily injury" definition to be ambiguous as to whether emotional distress requires physical harm to be bodily injury. Many insurers have amended bodily injury to expressly require a...more

Rivkin Radler LLP

Insurance Update - January 2024

Rivkin Radler LLP on

In our January insurance update, we include three state cases addressing some less common situations. It’s not often that a pollution exclusion is interpreted in the context of an auto policy. But the South Dakota Supreme...more

Cozen O'Connor

Court Issues First LEG3 Defects Exclusion Decision

Cozen O'Connor on

In a case of first impression, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (applying Illinois law) rejected a LEG3 exclusion as ambiguous. See S. Capitol Bridgebuilders “SCB” v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2023...more

Rivkin Radler LLP

Insurance Update - June 2023

Rivkin Radler LLP on

Courts took up some interesting insurance questions this past month. Here’s some we address in our June Insurance Update. When a government sponsored cyberattack infects computers worldwide, does the war exclusion apply? ...more

Payne & Fears

Texas Federal Court Delivers Another Big Win for Policyholders on CGL Coverage for Construction-Defect Claims and “Rip-and-Tear”...

Payne & Fears on

Insurers regularly argue that commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies are not performance bonds and therefore there is no coverage for claims seeking damages for defective or faulty workmanship. Insurers also argue...more

Payne & Fears

Pennsylvania Federal Court Confirms: Construction Defect Claims Not Covered by CGL Policies

Payne & Fears on

The construction industry operates under the constant spectre of claims seeking damages for defective or faulty workmanship. Fortunately, the law in most states treats these claims as covered under commercial general...more

Payne & Fears

Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

Payne & Fears on

On Oct. 28, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court in Zurich American Insurance Company v.. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 66, held that an insured can rely on extrinsic facts to show that an insurer has a...more

Carlton Fields

South Carolina Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Damages Discovered Years After Occurrence-Based Policy...

Carlton Fields on

Potential Six-Year Delay in Notice of Flood and Mold Damage “Substantially Prejudiced” Insurer - In Atain Specialty Insurance Company v. Carolina Professional Builders, LLC et al., 2:18-cv-2352-BHH (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2020),...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Ohio Supreme Court Bucks Recent Trend and Holds No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Commercial General Liability Policy -...

The insurance coverage analysis under a commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy begins with the “insuring agreement.” The standard CGL policy provides coverage for “those sums that the insured becomes legally...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Reasonable Expectations Cannot Overcome Unambiguous Policy Language - Construction and Procurement Law News, Q4 2018

In a recent decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (a federal appellate court supervising the federal trial courts in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands) enforced the plain meaning of an...more

White and Williams LLP

Ohio Rejects the Majority Trend and Finds No Liability Coverage for a Subcontractor’s Faulty Work

White and Williams LLP on

In Ohio N. Univ. v. Charles Constr. Servs., 2018 Ohio LEXIS 2375 (No. 2017-0514, October 9, 2018), the Supreme Court of Ohio was recently called upon to determine if a general contractor’s Commercial General Liability (CGL)...more

White and Williams LLP

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Concludes “Soup to Nuts” Policy Does Not Include Faulty Workmanship Coverage

White and Williams LLP on

Earlier this month, in Frederick Mutual Insurance Company v. Hall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that coverage for faulty workmanship claims is “simply not the kind of coverage insurance agents and...more

Pillsbury - Policyholder Pulse blog

Ohio Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor’s Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to the Work Itself Not Covered under CGL Policy

Last week, the Ohio Supreme Court unfortunately narrowed the scope of coverage for a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship. The court held in Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services, Inc. that faulty...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Construction One-Minute Read: “OH No!” Buckeye State’s Supreme Court Nixes Insurance for Subcontractors’ Defective Work

In an opinion released on October 9, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a general contractor’s commercial general liability insurance did not cover the defective work of either that contractor or its subcontractors....more

Robinson+Cole Property Insurance Coverage...

Texas Federal Court Holds Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Applies to All Damage Caused By Drilling Gear Malfunction, Rejects...

When does an excluded loss end and a covered “resulting loss” begin? This thorny question was the subject of a recent decision out of the Southern District of Texas, EMS USA, Inc. v. The Travelers Lloyds Insurance Co., No....more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Insurance Recovery Law - December 2015

Court Rejects Attempt to Broaden "Employer's Liability" Exclusion, Requiring Coverage - Why it matters: A New York federal court recently ruled that an "Employer's Liability" exclusion in a CGL policy applies only when...more

16 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide