“[O]ne area where the law continues to evolve as more courts confront the issue is whether actions against an insured regarding its work product have alleged an ‘occurrence’ even where the work was actually performed by a subcontractor,” write members of Goldberg Segalla’s Global Insurance Services practice in the latest installment of the firm’s long-running Construction Defect Claims Update series with Mealey’s Litigation Report. “On the one hand, some courts say that there is no occurrence because the alleged damage is limited to the insured’s work product,” they explain. “On the other hand, a court may determine that because the policy’s Damage to Your Work contacts an exception for work performed by a subcontractor, there must have been an occurrence in the first instance or the exception would be meaningless.”
In Part I of “Construction Defect Claims: A 2020 Update,” Goldberg Segalla insurance coverage attorneys Thomas F. Segalla, Michael T. Glascott, Ashlyn M. Capote, Adam R. Durst, Sean P. Hvisdas, and Jason E. Rusche examine this issue and others in the realm of construction defect coverage, addressing the most recent analyses from courts across the nation.
Part I treats decisions in construction defect coverage cases venued in Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
“Construction Defect Claims: A 2020 Update—Part I,” Mealey’s Litigation Report: Construction Defects Insurance, November 2020