Christopher Fredericks and Gregory S. Mantych | International Law Office | February 7, 2017 Introduction Of the various provisions found in insurance policies, few lend themselves to existential exploration more than those concerning ‘related’ acts. What makes two separate acts related? Does the relationship come down to the similarities or the differences? Does one act… Continue reading Related Acts Provisions in Professional Liability Policies
Category: General Liability Policy
Completed-Operations Coverage: What Is Included and Excluded from Your Commercial General Liability Policy?
Barbara Jordan and Donald Leach | Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | January 31, 2017 In 2008, Ohio Northern University (ONU) entered into a contract with Charles Construction Services, Inc. (CCS) for the construction of The Inn, a new luxury hotel and conference center on ONU’s Campus, consisting of 57,000 square feet of space, including guest… Continue reading Completed-Operations Coverage: What Is Included and Excluded from Your Commercial General Liability Policy?
A Known Construction Defect Left Uncorrected Is Not An Accidental “Occurrence”
Troutman Sanders | January 23, 2017 In Navigators v. Moorefield, the court addresses two coverage questions in the context of a commercial general liability insurer’s action for reimbursement of all amounts it paid toward the settlement of construction defect litigation against its general contractor insured. First, if the policy states that it covers property damage… Continue reading A Known Construction Defect Left Uncorrected Is Not An Accidental “Occurrence”
Arizona Court of Appeals Rules That Coverage for an Additional Insured is no Greater Than Coverage Afforded a Named Insured – – Interpretation of the Your Work Exclusion.
J. Gregory Cahill | Dickinson Wright PLLC | January 12, 2017 In a matter of first impression, the Arizona Court of Appeals recently ruled that the “Your Work Exclusion” in a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance policy bars coverage for an additional insured when the only claimed damage was to the named insured’s own work.… Continue reading Arizona Court of Appeals Rules That Coverage for an Additional Insured is no Greater Than Coverage Afforded a Named Insured – – Interpretation of the Your Work Exclusion.
Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective Flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards
Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore | Haight Brown & Bonsteel | December 29, 2016 In Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Const. (No.G050759, filed 12/27/16), a California appeals court held that the knowing installation of flooring over a vapor-emitting slab was not an accident or occurrence, entitling the insurer to reimbursement of money paid… Continue reading Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective Flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards