{"id":891010,"date":"2016-09-23T11:12:14","date_gmt":"2016-09-23T17:12:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=891010"},"modified":"2016-09-23T11:37:32","modified_gmt":"2016-09-23T17:37:32","slug":"subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/","title":{"rendered":"Subcontractor Exception Torpedoes Insurers\u2019 Defense To Faulty Workmanship Claim"},"content":{"rendered":"

Daniel G. Enriquez and Robert D. Helfand | PropertyCasualtyFocus<\/a> | September 16, 2016<\/p>\n

As this blog has reported,\u00a0a line of cases deciding coverage disputes over faulty workmanship runs against (or, at least, around<\/em>) a basic rule for interpreting insurance policies.\u00a0 Under that rule, the scope of coverage is determined by a policy\u2019s insuring clause<\/strong>, which may be narrowed<\/strong> by one or more exclusions<\/strong>.\u00a0 Exceptions\u00a0<\/strong>to the exclusions can add back coverage that the exclusions remove, but they cannot<\/strong> create<\/em><\/strong> coverage beyond the ambit of the insuring clause.\u00a0 E.g.<\/em>, West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. MacDougall Pierce Const., Inc<\/em>., 11 N.E.3d 531, 538 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).\u00a0 This summer, in Cypress Point Condominium Ass\u2019n, Inc. v. Adria Towers, L.L.C.<\/em>, 226 N.J. 403 (N.J. Aug. 4, 2016), the Supreme Court of New Jersey joined the ranks of courts that honor this principle in the breach.\u00a0 The court did not <\/strong>hold that a subcontractor exception to a \u201cYour Work\u201d exclusion<\/a> created coverage; but it did <\/em>find that the presence of the exception required it to construe the insuring clause more broadly than substantially identical clauses found in policies from which the exception was absent<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Workmanship Is Hard<\/strong><\/p>\n

The long war over coverage for faulty workmanship<\/a> is fought in a number of different theaters.\u00a0 There\u2019s the\u00a0insuring clause,\u00a0which forces courts to ask whether mistakes on the job are \u201caccidents,\u201d or just a predictable cost of doing business.\u00a0 There\u2019s the \u201cYour Work\u201d exclusion\u00a0and the question of whether the insured is being asked to do anything more than deliver the work he was paid for.\u00a0 And there\u2019s the underlying complaint\u2014which might appear to sound in \u201cnegligence,\u201d but really allege a breach of contract.\u00a0 See Columbia Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Cenark Project Mgmt. Servs., <\/em>2016 Ark. 185 (2016).<\/p>\n

The battle in Cypress Point <\/em><\/a>ranged over several of these terrains.\u00a0 After a luxury condominium complex in Hoboken, New Jersey\u00a0was completed in 2004, residents complained of roof leaks and water infiltration at interior window jambs and sills.\u00a0 Water infiltration that occurred after the building had been completed and occupied also caused mold growth and other damage to the buildings\u2019 common areas and interior structures.\u00a0 The leaks and infiltration were ultimately traced to the defective work of a subcontractor<\/strong> on the project.\u00a0 The condominium association sued the building\u2019s developers, which sought coverage under two Commercial General Liability policies.\u00a0 After the insurers denied coverage, the association asserted a claim for a declaratory judgment that the developer was entitled to coverage.<\/p>\n

The policies at issue were written on an ISO form created in 1986, providing coverage for \u201cthose sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of \u2026 \u2018property damage\u2019<\/strong>\u2026caused by an \u2018occurrence.\u2019<\/strong>\u201d \u201cProperty damage\u201d is defined to include \u201c[p]hysical injury to tangible property including all resulting loss of use of that property.\u201d\u00a0 An \u201coccurrence<\/strong>\u201d is defined as \u201can accident<\/strong>, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.\u201d<\/p>\n

The ISO form also excludes <\/strong>coverage for \u201c\u2018[p]roperty damage\u2019 to \u2018your work\u2019<\/strong> arising out of it or any part of it and included in the \u2018products-completed operations hazard.\u2019\u201d But the form differs from an earlier, 1973 version, in that the exclusion is subject to an exception,<\/strong> which applies \u201cif the damaged work or the work out of which the damage arises was performed on [the insured\u2019s] behalf by a subcontractor<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The trial court awarded summary judgment to the insurers, relying on two earlier appellate cases, Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc.<\/em><\/a>, 81 N.J. 233, 405 A. 2d 788 (N.J. 1979), and Firemen\u2019s Insurance Co. of Newark v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.<\/em>, 387 N.J. Super. 434, 904 A. 2d 754 (App. Div. 2006).<\/p>\n

In Weedo<\/em>, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that CGL policies do not provide coverage \u201cwhere the damages claimed are the cost of correcting the [insured\u2019s allegedly defective] work itself\u201d\u2014as opposed to consequential damages to other structures.\u00a0 In Firemen\u2019s<\/em>, an intermediate appellate court went further, holding that an insured\u2019s installation of defective firewalls did not constitute an \u201coccurrence\u201d within the meaning of the policy\u2019s insuring clause<\/strong>.\u00a0 The court explained that issuers of CGL policies did not assume \u201c\u2018the risk that the contractor\u2019s work may be faulty and may breach express or implied warranties.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201c[T]he key distinction is the predictability of the harm: damage for breach of contractual warranty is limited and is an expected cost of doing business; liability for injury or damage to a person or property is potentially \u2018almost limitless\u2019 and is \u2018entirely unpredictable.\u2019 The policy is designed to ensure against the latter risk.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the damage claimed by the condominium association fell within the plain meaning of \u201cproperty damage\u201d and \u201coccurrence.\u201d\u00a0 Cypress Point Condo. Ass\u2019n, Inc. v. Adria Towers, L.L.C.<\/em>, 441 N.J. Super. 369 (App. Div. 2015).\u00a0 In reaching that conclusion, the appellate court distinguished Weedo <\/em>and Firemen\u2019s<\/em>, on the ground that those cases interpreted the 1973 version of the ISO CGL policy, rather than the 1986 version that was before the court.\u00a0 The insurers appealed.<\/p>\n

Occurrences Change<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s analysis began with the question of whether the association had alleged \u201cproperty damage\u201d<\/a> within the meaning of the policy.\u00a0 The court found that the mold growth and other damage to building interiors and common areas, which occurred after the buildings had been completed and turned over to the residents, were \u201c[p]hysical injury to tangible property\u201d within the scope of the policy\u2019s coverage.<\/p>\n

The next issue was whether this damage constituted an \u201coccurrence<\/strong>,\u201d which the policies define as an \u201caccident<\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0 On this point, the insurers invoked\u00a0 the classic argument that faulty workmanship is not \u201caccidental,\u201d because \u201cit is one of the normal, frequent, and predictable consequences of the construction business<\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0 They contended that the rule of Firemen\u2019s<\/em> was still valid, asserting:<\/p>\n

\u201ca developer\u2019s failure to ensure that a subcontractor\u2019s work is sound results in a breach of contract, not a covered \u201caccident\u201d (or \u201coccurrence\u201d) under the terms of the policies.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To dispatch this argument, the Supreme Court had to explain why earlier cases interpreting \u201coccurrence\u201d were not controlling.\u00a0 It did so in two stages.\u00a0 The first was to note that its own prior decision, Weedo<\/em>, had not interpreted the term \u201coccurrence\u201d in the 1973 ISO form; that step had been taken only by later cases, such as Firemen\u2019s<\/em>, that were decided by intermediate appellate courts.<\/p>\n

Having declared itself free to interpret the insuring clause of the ISO form as a matter of first impression, the court proceeded to do so.\u00a0 It found that the common definition of the word \u201caccident\u201d is broad enough to \u201cencompass[] unintended and unexpected harm caused by negligent conduct<\/strong>\u201d\u2014including the conduct of a building contractor.\u00a0 Perhaps more importantly, however, the court had, by that point in its opinion, already made the following observations about the 1986 form:<\/p>\n

[T]he 1986 ISO [policy] includes a significant exception to an exclusion not contained in the 1973 ISO [policy].<\/p>\n

\u201cIn creating the subcontractor exception to the \u2018your work\u2019 exclusion, it has been noted that the ISO was motivated by an agreement between policy holders and insurers<\/p>\n

that the CGL policy should provide coverage for defective construction claims so long as the allegedly defective work had been performed by a subcontractor rather than the policyholder itself. This resulted both because of the demands of the policyholder community \u2026 and the view of insurers that the CGL was a more attractive product that could be better sold if it contained this coverage. \u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cMoreover, the ISO itself \u2018confirm[ed] that the 1986 revisions to the standard CGL policy . . . specifically \u201ccover[ed] \u2026 damage to, or caused by, a subcontractor\u2019s work after the insured\u2019s operations are completed.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In short, although the court did not find that the subcontractor exception created coverage, it tacitly followed other courts in finding that the presence of the exception justified a new, broader interpretation of the terms that appeared in the insuring clause.\u00a0 (The 1973 form contained a slightly different definition of \u201coccurrence\u201d from the 1986 form, but, in Cypress Point<\/em>, neither the Appellate Division nor the Supreme Court explained how that difference might be relevant to the outcome of the case.)<\/p>\n

Not Your Work<\/strong><\/p>\n

The final step in the analysis was to determine whether an exclusion applied.\u00a0 The court found that the \u201cYour Work\u201d exclusion facially applied to bar coverage.\u00a0 However, because the subcontractor exception also <\/strong>applied, and because the claim was based on a subcontractor\u2019s faulty workmanship, the Court found that this exception to the exclusion had the effect of restoring coverage.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Supreme Court of New Jersey is now marching in step with what the court called \u201ca strong recent trend \u2026 interpet[ing] the term \u2018occurrence\u2019 to encompass unanticipated damage to nondefective property resulting from poor workmanship<\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0 Greystone Constr. v. Nat\u2019l Fire & Marine Ins. Co<\/em>., 661 F. 3d 1272, 1282-82, 1286 (10th Cir. 2011); Sheehan Constr. Co. v. Cont\u2019l Cas. Co<\/em>., 935 N.E. 2d 160, 169-71 (Ind. 2010), modified on other grounds, 938 N.E. 2d 685 (Ind. 2010); Architex Ass\u2019n v. Scottsdale Ins. Co<\/em>., 27 So. 3d 1148, 1162 (Miss. 2010); Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Moore & Assocs., Inc<\/em>., 216 S.W. 3d 302, 309 (Tenn. 2007); Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co<\/em>., 242 S.W. 3d 1, 16 (Tex. 2007); Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Girl, Inc<\/em>., 268 Wis. 2d 16, 673 N.W. 2d 65, 70 (2004).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Daniel G. Enriquez and Robert D. Helfand | PropertyCasualtyFocus | September 16, 2016 As this blog has reported,\u00a0a line of cases deciding coverage disputes over faulty workmanship runs against (or, at least, around) a basic rule for interpreting insurance policies.\u00a0 Under that rule, the scope of coverage is determined by a policy\u2019s insuring clause, which… Continue reading Subcontractor Exception Torpedoes Insurers\u2019 Defense To Faulty Workmanship Claim<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,3],"tags":[68,3],"class_list":["post-891010","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-construction-defects","category-insurance-claims","tag-faulty-workmanship","tag-insurance-claims","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nSubcontractor Exception Torpedoes Insurers\u2019 Defense To Faulty Workmanship Claim - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"a line of cases deciding coverage disputes over faulty workmanship runs against (or, at least, around) a basic rule for interpreting insurance policies\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subcontractor Exception Torpedoes Insurers\u2019 Defense To Faulty Workmanship Claim - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"a line of cases deciding coverage disputes over faulty workmanship runs against (or, at least, around) a basic rule for interpreting insurance policies\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-09-23T17:12:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-23T17:37:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Subcontractor Exception Torpedoes Insurers\u2019 Defense To Faulty Workmanship Claim\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-09-23T17:12:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-23T17:37:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/\"},\"wordCount\":1548,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"faulty workmanship\",\"Insurance Claims\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Construction Defects\",\"Insurance Claims\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/\",\"name\":\"Subcontractor Exception Torpedoes Insurers\u2019 Defense To Faulty Workmanship Claim - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-09-23T17:12:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-23T17:37:32+00:00\",\"description\":\"a line of cases deciding coverage disputes over faulty workmanship runs against (or, at least, around) a basic rule for interpreting insurance policies\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Subcontractor Exception Torpedoes Insurers\u2019 Defense To Faulty Workmanship Claim - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"a line of cases deciding coverage disputes over faulty workmanship runs against (or, at least, around) a basic rule for interpreting insurance policies","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subcontractor Exception Torpedoes Insurers\u2019 Defense To Faulty Workmanship Claim - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"a line of cases deciding coverage disputes over faulty workmanship runs against (or, at least, around) a basic rule for interpreting insurance policies","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2016-09-23T17:12:14+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-23T17:37:32+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Subcontractor Exception Torpedoes Insurers\u2019 Defense To Faulty Workmanship Claim","datePublished":"2016-09-23T17:12:14+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-23T17:37:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/"},"wordCount":1548,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["faulty workmanship","Insurance Claims"],"articleSection":["Construction Defects","Insurance Claims"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/","name":"Subcontractor Exception Torpedoes Insurers\u2019 Defense To Faulty Workmanship Claim - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-09-23T17:12:14+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-23T17:37:32+00:00","description":"a line of cases deciding coverage disputes over faulty workmanship runs against (or, at least, around) a basic rule for interpreting insurance policies","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/subcontractor-exception-torpedoes-insurers-defense-to-faulty-workmanship-claim\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3JN8","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891010","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=891010"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891010\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":891023,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891010\/revisions\/891023"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=891010"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=891010"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=891010"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}