Defense Counsel Journal - International Association of Defense ...
Defense Counsel Journal - International Association of Defense ...
Defense Counsel Journal - International Association of Defense ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Page 480 DEFENSE COUNSEL JOURNAL–October 2012APPENDIX ISTATE BY STATE INDEXAlabama: Town and Country Prop., LLCv. Amerisure Ins. Co., No. 1100009, 2011WL 5009777 (Ala. Oct. 21, 2011).Occurrence? Yes. Defectiveconstruction can be an “occurrence”if it subjects personal property orother parts <strong>of</strong> the structure to“continuous or repeated exposure” toharmful conditions resulting indamage.Insured’s work covered? No. Thebusiness risk exclusions precludecoverage for the repair <strong>of</strong> theinsured’s defective product. Onlydamage to “other property” iscovered.Alaska: Fejes v. Alaska Ins. Co., Inc.,984 P.2d 519 (Alaska 1999).Occurrence? Yes. Defectiveconstruction can be an “occurrence”where the insured did not expect orintend the result <strong>of</strong> the defectiveconstruction.Insured’s work covered? Yes, ifperformed by a subcontractor. No, ifperformed by the insured.Arizona: United States Fidelity &Guaranty Corp. v. Advance Ro<strong>of</strong>ing &Supply Co., Inc., 788 P.2d 1227 (Ariz. Ct.App. 1989).Occurrence? No.Insured’s work covered? No.Arkansas: Lexicon v. ACE American Ins.Co., 634 F.3d 423 (8th Cir . 2010).Occurrence? Damage to work itselfis not occurrence while collateraldamage caused by faulty work is anoccurrence.Insured’s work covered? No.Defective workmanship standingalone is not an occurrence. 35California: Standard Fire Ins. Co. v.Spectrum Community Ass’n, 46Cal.Rptr.3d 804 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).Occurrence? Yes, implicitly.California courts seem to haveglossed over this question. There area number <strong>of</strong> opinions like StandardFire that address the question <strong>of</strong>whether a defect which occurs overtime triggers multiple policies.However, none <strong>of</strong> the decisionsactually addresses the threshold issue<strong>of</strong> whether such defects constitute an“occurrence” in the first instance.Insured’s work covered? Yes,implicitly, based upon the samerationale.Colorado: General Security IndemnityCo. <strong>of</strong> Arizona v. Mountain States Mut.Casualty Co., 205 P.2d 529 (Colo. Ct.App. 2009).35 Essex Ins. Co. v. Holder, 261 S.W.2d 456(Ark. 2008).