Defense Counsel Journal - International Association of Defense ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 of the structure to“continuous or repeated exposure” toharmful conditions resulting indamage.Insured’s work covered? No. Thebusiness risk exclusions precludecoverage for the repair of 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 of the defectiveconstruction.Insured’s work covered? Yes, ifperformed by a subcontractor. No, ifperformed by the insured.Arizona: United States Fidelity &Guaranty Corp. v. Advance Roofing &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 of opinions like StandardFire that address the question ofwhether a defect which occurs overtime triggers multiple policies.However, none of the decisionsactually addresses the threshold issueof whether such defects constitute an“occurrence” in the first instance.Insured’s work covered? Yes,implicitly, based upon the samerationale.Colorado: General Security IndemnityCo. of 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).
Raising the Roof Page 481Occurrence? No. Defectiveconstruction lacks the fortuityimplicit in the concept of an accident.Insured’s work covered? No.Connecticut: Travelers Prop. CasualtyCo. of Am. v. Laticrete, Int’l, Inc.,CV044002006S, 2006 WL 2349079(Conn. Super. Ct. July 27, 2006).Occurrence? Yes, implicitly. Likethe California court in Standard Fire,the court glossed over the initial“occurrence” analysis and analyzedwhen property damage occurred fortrigger purposes.Insured’s work covered? Yes,implicitly.Delaware: Charles E. Brohawn & Bros,Inc. v. Employers Commercial Union Ins.Co., 409 A.2d 1055 (Del. 1979).Occurrence? Yes, implicitly. Thecourt assumed that defectiveconstruction constituted propertydamage caused by an occurrence anddecided the case based upon the“sistership” exclusion.Insured’s work covered? Possibly,depending upon the applicability of a“sistership” or other exclusion.Florida: United States Fire Ins. Co. v.J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So.2d 871 (Fla. 2007).Occurrence? Yes. Defective workperformed by a subcontractor wasnot expected or intended by thegeneral contractor and is therefore an“accident.”Insured’s work covered? Yes, if thework was performed by asubcontractor. No, if it wasperformed by the insured. However,damage to work other than theinsured’s work is covered regardless.Georgia: American Empire Surplus LineIns. Co. v. Hathaway Development Co.,Inc., 707 S.E.2d 369 (Ga. 2011).Occurrence? Yes. Faultyworkmanship causing damage toneighboring property constitutes anaccident.Insured’s work covered? No. 36Hawaii: Group Builders, Inc. v. AdmiralIns. Co., 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App.2010).Occurrence? No. Whether couchedas contractual or tort-based claims,claims of defective construction donot constitute an “occurrence.”Insured’s work covered? No.Idaho: Undecided.Illinois: Country Mutual Ins. Co. v. Carr,867 N.E.2d 1157 (Ill. Ct. App. 2007).Occurrence? Yes. If the insured didnot intend or expect damage to result36 See Custom Planning & Development v.American National Fire Ins. Co., 606 S.E.2d39 (Ga. 2004).
Page 4 and 5:
Page 380advanced in the world, yet
Page 6 and 7:
Page 3822013 midyear MeetingFebruar
Page 8 and 9:
Page 384Defense Counsel JournalBoar
Page 10 and 11:
Page 386Calendarof MeetingsMidyear
Page 12 and 13:
Page 388 DEFENSE COUNSEL JOURNAL-Oc
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
The Global Supply Chain: Understand
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55: Page 430 DEFENSE COUNSEL JOURNAL-Oc
Page 62 and 63: Fending off the Use of a Rule 12(f)
Page 78 and 79: Predictability in Punitive Damages:
Page 114 and 115: CONNINGConning theIADC NewslettersI
Page 118 and 119: Newsletters Page 494TEXAS STATE COU
Page 136: U.S. Postal Service Statement of Ow
show all

Defense Counsel Journal - International Association of Defense ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?