{"id":891558,"date":"2017-01-24T12:03:02","date_gmt":"2017-01-24T19:03:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=891558"},"modified":"2017-01-24T12:03:02","modified_gmt":"2017-01-24T19:03:02","slug":"arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/","title":{"rendered":"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."},"content":{"rendered":"

J. Gregory Cahill | Dickinson Wright PLLC<\/a> | January 12, 2017<\/p>\n

In a matter of first impression, the Arizona Court of Appeals recently ruled that the \u201cYour Work Exclusion\u201d in a Commercial General Liability (\u201cCGL\u201d) insurance policy bars coverage for an additional insured when the only claimed damage was to the named insured\u2019s own work.<\/p>\n

This exclusion is standard in most CGL policies. The theory behind the exclusion is that the purpose of a CGL policy is to compensate for property damage, not to warrant the quality of an insured\u2019s work. For example, if a roofing subcontractor defectively installs a roof and the only damage is to the roof itself, the exclusion bars coverage. However, if damage occurs to other property as well, then coverage to repair the \u201cother\u201d damage will typically exist. Thus, if the roofer\u2019s defective work also leads to water intrusion which damages the interior of a building (e.g., drywall or framing damage), the exclusion will not bar coverage for the interior property damage.<\/p>\n

This exclusion is typically coupled with a \u201cSubcontractor Exception,\u201d which provides that the exclusion does not apply if the damage to Your<\/em> Work . . . \u201carises from work performed on Your behalf by a subcontractor.\u201d The term \u201cYour\u201d is typically defined as the named insured.<\/p>\n

Until recently it was unclear whether the exception would permit coverage for an additional insured (general contractor) even though the only damage was to a named insured\u2019s (subcontractor) work. That was the issue before the Arizona Court of Appeals in Double AA Builders, Inc. v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Company, LLC.<\/em>1<\/p>\n

In 2007, Harkins Theaters hired Double AA to serve as a general contractor for the construction of a theater complex. Double AA, in turn, hired Anchor Roofing to install the roof. Double AA\u2019s subcontract with Anchor required Anchor to have Double AA named as an additional insured under any CGL policies that would apply to the work. Anchor obtained a CGL policy from Preferred Contractors Insurance Company in which Anchor was the named insured and Double AA an additional insured.<\/p>\n

Shortly after the project was completed the roof began to leak. At Harkin\u2019s request Double AA replaced the roof. Double AA then sued Anchor, Preferred, and its own insurance carrier. Notably, the only damage claimed by Double AA was the cost to replace the roof.<\/p>\n

Double AA settled with its carrier and obtained a default judgment against Anchor. Preferred answered the complaint and it and Double AA filed cross-motions on whether the \u201cYour Work\u201d exclusion barred coverage for the cost to replace the roof. The trial court ruled in favor of Double AA and Preferred appealed. In reversing the trial court\u2019s ruling the Court of Appeals held that, under an additional insured endorsement, the coverage afforded an additional insured can be no greater than the coverage afforded a named insured. The Court explained that, since the term \u201cYour\u201d was defined as the named insured, the Subcontractor Exception only applied if the damage was to the work of Anchor\u2019s subcontractor. The fact that Anchor was Double AA\u2019s subcontractor was irrelevant. The court found that if an additional insured was allowed to take advantage of the \u201cSubcontractor Exception\u201d where the named insured could not, the carrier\u2019s risk would be increased without a corresponding increase in premiums. The Court directed the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Preferred.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s opinion did clarify an important point. It made clear that its holding was dictated by the nature of the claimed damages, that is, Double AA only sought recovery of the cost to replace Anchor\u2019s defective work. Had Double AA sought recovery for damage to other property, the result would likely have been different.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

J. Gregory Cahill | Dickinson Wright PLLC | January 12, 2017 In a matter of first impression, the Arizona Court of Appeals recently ruled that the \u201cYour Work Exclusion\u201d in a Commercial General Liability (\u201cCGL\u201d) insurance policy bars coverage for an additional insured when the only claimed damage was to the named insured\u2019s 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.<\/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":[30,3],"tags":[7757,382,153,23],"class_list":["post-891558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general-liability-policy","category-insurance-claims","tag-your-work-exclusion","tag-additional-insured","tag-arizona","tag-insurance-coverage","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nArizona 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. - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Your Work Exclusion in a CGL insurance policy bars coverage for an additional insured when the only claimed damage was to the named insured\u2019s own work\" \/>\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\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"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. - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Your Work Exclusion in a CGL insurance policy bars coverage for an additional insured when the only claimed damage was to the named insured\u2019s own work\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/\" \/>\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=\"2017-01-24T19:03:02+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=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"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.\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-01-24T19:03:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/\"},\"wordCount\":648,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"\\\"Your Work\\\" Exclusion\",\"Additional Insured\",\"Arizona\",\"insurance coverage\"],\"articleSection\":[\"General Liability Policy\",\"Insurance Claims\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/\",\"name\":\"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. - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-01-24T19:03:02+00:00\",\"description\":\"Your Work Exclusion in a CGL insurance policy bars coverage for an additional insured when the only claimed damage was to the named insured\u2019s own work\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/\"]}]},{\"@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":"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. - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Your Work Exclusion in a CGL insurance policy bars coverage for an additional insured when the only claimed damage was to the named insured\u2019s own work","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\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"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. - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"Your Work Exclusion in a CGL insurance policy bars coverage for an additional insured when the only claimed damage was to the named insured\u2019s own work","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2017-01-24T19:03:02+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"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.","datePublished":"2017-01-24T19:03:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/"},"wordCount":648,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["\"Your Work\" Exclusion","Additional Insured","Arizona","insurance coverage"],"articleSection":["General Liability Policy","Insurance Claims"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/","name":"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. - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-01-24T19:03:02+00:00","description":"Your Work Exclusion in a CGL insurance policy bars coverage for an additional insured when the only claimed damage was to the named insured\u2019s own work","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arizona-court-appeals-rules-coverage-additional-insured-no-greater-coverage-afforded-named-insured-interpretation-work-exclusion\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3JVY","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891558","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=891558"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891558\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":891559,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891558\/revisions\/891559"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=891558"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=891558"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=891558"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}