20.07.2013 Views

Is My Drywall Chinese? - HB Litigation Conferences

Is My Drywall Chinese? - HB Litigation Conferences

Is My Drywall Chinese? - HB Litigation Conferences

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

So.2d 400, 405-406 (La. App. 2005). States where the law is unfavorable on the<br />

“occurrence” issue include Pennsylvania, Georgia, Iowa, and Nebraska. The law in other<br />

states is still developing. Even in states where the law is favorable on the “occurrence” issue,<br />

contractors will still be required to establish as a factual matter that they did not learn of the<br />

harmful effects of the drywall at issue until after it was installed.<br />

Whether a contractor is covered for the cost of removing and replacing the defective<br />

<strong>Chinese</strong> drywall itself -- as opposed to the cost of repairing the property damage caused by<br />

the drywall -- is less clear. Many decisions distinguish between the cost of repairing property<br />

damage caused by faulty work or material, on the one hand, and the cost of repairing or<br />

replacing the faulty work or material itself on the other. See, e.g., Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v.<br />

Pozzi Window Co., 984 So.2d 1241, 1247-49 (Fla. 2008) (windows not covered if defectively<br />

manufactured but covered if defectively installed). A strong argument can be made that the<br />

cost of repairing or replacing <strong>Chinese</strong> drywall is covered to the extent that such repair or<br />

replacement is necessary to repair the property damage caused by the drywall. See, e.g.,<br />

Newman, 2008 WL 648546, at *5 (cost of replacing defective synthetic stucco is covered<br />

because synthetic stucco must be removed in order to repair damage to the substrate caused<br />

by synthetic stucco). In addition, an exception to the CGL policy’s “your work” exclusion<br />

arguably contemplates coverage not only for work damaged by a contractor’s subcontractor<br />

but also for the subcontractor’s faulty work itself. See, e.g., Lamar Homes, 242 S.W.3d at<br />

11 (“when a general contractor becomes liable for damage to work performed by a<br />

subcontractor . . . the subcontractor exception preserves coverage that the “your work”<br />

exclusion would otherwise negate”); Limbach Co. v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 396 F.3d 358,<br />

361-63 (4th Cir. 2005 (applying Pennsylvania law) (same).<br />

- 3 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!