{"id":904339,"date":"2025-05-13T16:03:52","date_gmt":"2025-05-13T22:03:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=904339"},"modified":"2025-05-13T16:03:56","modified_gmt":"2025-05-13T22:03:56","slug":"cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Oregon Supreme Court Expands CGL Coverage for Construction Defects: Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Company"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Seth Row and Cameron Zangenehzadeh | Stoel Rives<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background: A Repair Gone Wrong and a Coverage Dispute<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Businesses and homeowners in Oregon often assume their insurance will cover a contractor\u2019s faulty work. That assumption was put to the test in Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Co., <\/em>373 Or. 475 (2025), an Oregon Supreme Court decision with big implications for policyholders. The case started when a contractor, Rainier Pacific, repaired a home\u2019s concrete garage floor using an overlay product (Ardex), but failed to install control joints, which the homeowner contended were required. This mistake<\/em> led to unintended property damage: the new surface developed voids and cracks, leaving the garage floor in worse shape than before. The homeowner then entered into a repair agreement with the contractor that had very specific performance requirements for the new floor, but the contractor failed to meet those requirements, according to the homeowner. An arbitrator later found Rainier Pacific\u2019s work defective and awarded the homeowners $150,000 in damages to fix the floor\u200b. A trial court entered judgment against Rainier Pacific in the amount of the arbitrator\u2019s award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the homeowners sought to execute on that judgment (those efforts failed), they turned to Rainier Pacific\u2019s insurance company\u2014Admiral Insurance\u2014under its Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy. CGL policies are a common safeguard for contractors, meant to cover the contractor\u2019s liability for property damage or injuries caused by an \u201coccurrence\u201d (defined, in part, as an \u201caccident\u201d under the policy). Here, the homeowners argued that Rainier Pacific\u2019s poor workmanship had caused \u201cproperty damage\u201d to their garage floor, triggering Admiral\u2019s duty to indemnify (pay for the loss). Admiral, however, denied the claim, setting the stage for a legal battle over whether Twigg\u2019s damages were caused by an \u201coccurrence\u201d as required by the insuring agreement, or just a breach of the very exacting standards in the repair contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Insurance Company\u2019s Argument: No \u201cOccurrence\u201d Because It\u2019s Breach of Contract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Admiral Insurance\u2019s primary argument was a technical one: the homeowners\u2019 arbitration award was based on breach of contract, not on any tort claim like negligence. In Admiral\u2019s view, this meant the loss was not caused by an \u201caccident\u201d or \u201coccurrence\u201d as the policy required\u200b. Admiral relied on Oak Crest Construction Co. v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co., <\/em>329 Or. 620, 627, 998 P.2d 1254 (2000), which had suggested that an accident (for CGL coverage purposes) occurs only if the property damage \u201c\u2018results, in some sense, from a tort, i.e., a breach of some duty imposed by law.\u2019\u201d  Twigg<\/em>, 373 Or. at 482, 495 (quoting Oak Crest<\/em>, 329 Or. at 627). In plainer terms, Admiral contended that if a contractor is only liable for breaching a contract (failing to do what was promised), and not for breaching a legal duty independent of the contract, then the damage isn\u2019t from an \u201caccident\u201d\u2014it\u2019s just a breach, which CGL insurance doesn\u2019t cover.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both the trial court and the Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with the insurer on this point. The trial judge reasoned that Oak Crest<\/em> was \u201cindistinguishable\u201d from the Twigg<\/em> case: Rainier Pacific\u2019s liability was solely for shoddy work under a contract, with no separate duty of care violated beyond the contract. In other words, because the homeowners pursued Rainier Pacific for breaching the repair agreement (a contract) rather than suing for negligence, the courts viewed the damage as non-accidental for insurance purposes. The Court of Appeals echoed that logic, holding that Rainier Pacific\u2019s liability \u201carose solely from breach of its contractual duties,\u201d which by definition did not meet the policy\u2019s requirement of an accidental \u201coccurrence.\u201d Twigg v. Admiral Ins. Co<\/em>., 324 Or. App. 259, 272-73, 525 P.3d 478 (2023). The mere fact that the claim was framed as breach of contract was enough for those courts to affirm Admiral\u2019s motion for summary judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This interpretation left many policyholders uneasy. It suggested that if a construction defect is handled as a contract dispute (as is common: policyholders often sue contractors for breach of the construction contract or warranty), insurance coverage might evaporate, even if the underlying facts look<\/em> like an accident (defective work causing unintended property damage). A common misconception in insurance law is exactly this: that CGL insurance won\u2019t cover property damages couched as a breach of contract. Policyholders often hear insurers insist that any loss tied to a contract is not an insurable \u201caccident.\u201d Indeed, Admiral\u2019s stance in Twigg<\/em> exemplified that misconception, effectively equating no tort lawsuit<\/em> with no coverage<\/em>. For policyholders, this is a scary proposition: if your contractor does something wrong and only a contract claim is pleaded in arbitration or litigation, does your insurance really provide no help for the resulting damage?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oregon Supreme Court\u2019s Ruling: Focus on the Facts, Not the Legal Labels<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Oregon Supreme Court adopted a policyholder-friendly view, holding that coverage under a CGL policy depends on whether the facts show an accidental harm\u2014not on whether the claim is framed as a tort or contract. In a unanimous opinion by Justice DeHoog, the Court reversed the lower courts and clarified that \u201c[w]hether an insurance claim seeks recovery for an \u2018accident\u2019 does not depend on a plaintiff\u2019s pleading decisions . . . but depends instead on whether there is a basis in fact for imposing tort liability.\u201d Twigg<\/em>, 373 Or. at 477.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contrary to Admiral\u2019s argument that a contract-only claim bars coverage, the Court found that even if the underlying litigation is for breach of contract, coverage can exist if the facts reflect negligent conduct. The Court explained that Oak Crest<\/em> had been misread: it didn\u2019t require a formal tort claim to trigger coverage. Rather, Oak Crest<\/em> denied coverage because there was no evidence of accidental harm, not because a tort claim was absent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because Twigg<\/em> presented facts supporting negligence\u2014defective workmanship that caused physical damage\u2014the Court found the term \u201coccurrence\u201d ambiguous and construed it in favor of coverage, as required by Hoffman Construction Co. v. Fred S. James & Co.<\/em>, 313 Or. 464, 469-71, 836 P.2d 703 (1992). The Court concluded: \u201cplaintiffs were not required to formally allege a tort claim or obtain an award in tort. Rather, plaintiffs were required to establish that there was a basis in fact for imposing tort liability.\u201d Twigg<\/em>, 373 Or. at 501.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This decision affirms that coverage turns on whether the insured caused unintended damage by breaching a standard of care\u2014not on the legal label applied in the underlying dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why Twigg<\/em> Matters: Accidental Construction Damage Is Covered Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Twigg<\/em> decision dispels the myth that a contractor\u2019s liability for defective work is uninsurable if pursued as a breach of contract. If the facts show that faulty workmanship caused unintended property damage\u2014such as cracking or collapsing due to negligence\u2014then coverage under a CGL policy is possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This does not mean every contract breach is insurable. There must be actual \u201cproperty damage\u201d stemming from an \u201caccident.\u201d In Twigg<\/em>, that was clear: Rainier Pacific\u2019s subcontractor failed to follow critical installation steps, ignored warnings, and lied about manufacturer approval\u2014behavior that met the standard for negligence. The garage floor was physically damaged, and a jury could find the contractor negligent. Twigg<\/em> confirms that coverage may exist even if the plaintiff only pursued breach of contract, so long as the facts support accidental harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that Admiral couldn\u2019t escape coverage merely because the homeowner\u2019s claim was framed as contractual. Twigg<\/em> thus strengthens the rights of policyholders to obtain coverage for unintended consequences of defective work, as long as the harm qualifies as an \u201coccurrence.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clearing Up Misconceptions About \u201cOccurrence\u201d and Faulty Work<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Twigg<\/em> clarifies that \u201coccurrence\u201d under Oregon law includes unintended harm from negligent workmanship. While insurers often claim that faulty work is merely a business risk, the Oregon Supreme Court joined the majority of jurisdictions in recognizing that contractors don\u2019t intentionally botch jobs. If defective work causes damage beyond the work itself, it is usually accidental.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice DeHoog underscored that the proper focus is not on \u201cplaintiff\u2019s pleading decisions,\u201d but \u201cwhether there is a basis in fact for imposing tort liability.\u201d Twigg<\/em>, 373 Or. at 477. Thus, the same conduct\u2014such as negligent installation\u2014can support both a breach of contract claim and a negligence claim. That overlap does not preclude coverage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also rejected the insurer\u2019s effort to bar coverage based on exclusions before establishing that an \u201coccurrence\u201d existed. Although Admiral pointed to exclusions like \u201cyour work\u201d or pre-existing damage, those were not yet ruled upon. Twigg<\/em> ensures that policyholders aren\u2019t denied coverage at the outset based on rigid definitions of \u201caccident.\u201d Instead, if the facts support a negligence theory, the insured gets to argue for coverage on the merits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next Steps for Policyholders Facing Denials<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you\u2019re a policyholder dealing with property damage caused by a contractor\u2019s mistakes, Twigg<\/em> is a reminder not to take \u201cno coverage\u201d as the final answer\u2014especially if an insurer denies your claim solely because the liability was characterized as a contract matter. Here are some steps and considerations in light of the Twigg<\/em> decision:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Understand Your Policy and the \u201cOccurrence\u201d Requirement:<\/strong>\u00a0A standard CGL policy says the insurer will pay those sums the insured is legally obligated to pay as damages because of property damage, but only if caused by an \u201coccurrence.\u201d If your insurer denies a claim saying \u201cthis wasn\u2019t an occurrence,\u201d ask why. Is it because they claim the damage was intentional or expected? Or are they saying that because the claim against you was for breach of contract, it doesn\u2019t count as accidental? After\u00a0Twigg<\/em>, the latter reasoning is much less credible in Oregon.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Focus on the Facts of What Happened:<\/strong>\u00a0As\u00a0Twigg<\/em>\u00a0shows, what actually happened (the contractor\u2019s error and the resulting damage) is more important than the legal terminology. Gather evidence of how the damage occurred. Was it sudden or unexpected? Did it result from not following instructions or an error in the work? Such facts could establish a \u201cbasis in fact for imposing tort liability\u201d\u2014essentially showing the incident was caused by negligence. If so, point this out to the insurer, citing the\u00a0Twigg<\/em>\u00a0decision, that an accidental outcome from negligent work is an occurrence even if only contract claims were asserted.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Cite\u00a0Twigg<\/em>\u00a0and Related Precedents:<\/strong>\u00a0It may be helpful to reference the\u00a0Twigg<\/em>\u00a0decision in communications with an insurer when disputing a denial. Emphasize that Oregon\u2019s highest court has clarified an accident \u201cdoes not depend\u201d on how the claim is pleaded\u200b. If the adjusters are familiar only with older law (like\u00a0Oak Crest<\/em>), explain that\u00a0Twigg<\/em>\u00a0has updated the landscape and that even\u00a0Oak Crest<\/em>\u00a0acknowledged the possibility of coverage where facts support a negligence theory.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Watch for Exclusions (and Counter Them):<\/strong>\u00a0Even if you clear the \u201coccurrence\u201d hurdle, insurers might invoke other policy exclusions in defective work cases. For example, many CGL policies have exclusions for damage to \u201cyour work\u201d (the insured\u2019s own work product) or for damage that was ongoing at the time of policy inception. Admiral Insurance raised some of these in\u00a0Twigg<\/em>, such as the j(5) and j(6) workmanship exclusions and a pre-existing damage exclusion\u200b. The courts didn\u2019t ultimately decide those in\u00a0Twigg<\/em>, but on remand such issues will likely come up. As a policyholder, review these exclusions. Often, exclusions have exceptions (for instance, the \u201cyour work\u201d exclusion usually doesn\u2019t apply if the work was done by a subcontractor, which could preserve coverage). Be prepared to argue why an exclusion doesn\u2019t apply to your facts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Consult Legal Counsel if Needed:<\/strong>\u00a0Insurance coverage law can be complex, especially when insurers stand firm on a denial. Given the\u00a0Twigg<\/em>\u00a0decision, Oregon policyholders have stronger footing to challenge denials of coverage for accidental damage from faulty workmanship. An experienced insurance coverage attorney can help navigate this process, potentially turning an initial \u201cno\u201d from the insurer into coverage for your loss. Sometimes the mere fact of a new, policyholder-friendly Supreme Court decision can prompt insurers to reconsider and settle a coverage dispute once it\u2019s brought to their attention.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Oregon Supreme Court\u2019s decision in\u00a0Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Co.<\/em>\u00a0is a landmark for those insured under CGL policies<\/a>, particularly in the construction industry. It reinforces that when you buy liability insurance, you\u2019re buying protection against accidents\u2014including those that may occur in the course of fulfilling a contract. By looking past legal formalities and zeroing in on the reality of an insured\u2019s conduct and the damage caused, the Court has strengthened policyholder rights to indemnity. Policyholders in Oregon should take heart that if they suffer property damage due to a contractor\u2019s mistake, the law now clearly supports coverage, provided the facts show a basis for imposing tort liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Twigg<\/em> affirms a practical and fair principle: an accident is still an accident, even if it happens under a contract. Policyholders can feel more secure knowing their CGL policies may respond to genuine accidents causing property damage absent any applicable exclusions. As always, if you have questions about your coverage or face a denial, consider reaching out for legal advice. With evolving case law like Twigg<\/em>, Oregon policyholders have a stronger hand than ever to ensure their insurers pay what they owe when an accident occurs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n

    When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Seth Row and Cameron Zangenehzadeh | Stoel Rives Background: A Repair Gone Wrong and a Coverage Dispute Businesses and homeowners in Oregon often assume their insurance will cover a contractor\u2019s faulty work. That assumption was put to the test in Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Co., 373 Or. 475 (2025), an Oregon Supreme Court decision with big implications… Continue reading Oregon Supreme Court Expands CGL Coverage for Construction Defects: Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Company<\/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":[10791,4,30],"tags":[9895,270,24,320],"class_list":["post-904339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commercial-general-liability-policy","category-construction-defects","category-general-liability-policy","tag-advise-consult","tag-cgl-insurance-policy","tag-construction-defect","tag-oregon","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nOregon Supreme Court Expands CGL Coverage for Construction Defects: Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Company - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Oregon Supreme Court\u2019s decision is a landmark for those insured under CGL policies, particularly in the construction industry\" \/>\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\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Oregon Supreme Court Expands CGL Coverage for Construction Defects: Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Company - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Oregon Supreme Court\u2019s decision is a landmark for those insured under CGL policies, particularly in the construction industry\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/\" \/>\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=\"2025-05-13T22:03:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-05-13T22:03:56+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Oregon Supreme Court Expands CGL Coverage for Construction Defects: Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Company\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-05-13T22:03:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-05-13T22:03:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/\"},\"wordCount\":2307,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"CGL Insurance Policy\",\"construction defect\",\"Oregon\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Commercial General Liability Policy\",\"Construction Defects\",\"General Liability Policy\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/\",\"name\":\"Oregon Supreme Court Expands CGL Coverage for Construction Defects: Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Company - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-05-13T22:03:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-05-13T22:03:56+00:00\",\"description\":\"Oregon Supreme Court\u2019s decision is a landmark for those insured under CGL policies, particularly in the construction industry\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/\"]}]},{\"@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":"Oregon Supreme Court Expands CGL Coverage for Construction Defects: Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Company - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Oregon Supreme Court\u2019s decision is a landmark for those insured under CGL policies, particularly in the construction industry","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\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Oregon Supreme Court Expands CGL Coverage for Construction Defects: Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Company - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"Oregon Supreme Court\u2019s decision is a landmark for those insured under CGL policies, particularly in the construction industry","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2025-05-13T22:03:52+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-05-13T22:03:56+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Oregon Supreme Court Expands CGL Coverage for Construction Defects: Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Company","datePublished":"2025-05-13T22:03:52+00:00","dateModified":"2025-05-13T22:03:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/"},"wordCount":2307,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","CGL Insurance Policy","construction defect","Oregon"],"articleSection":["Commercial General Liability Policy","Construction Defects","General Liability Policy"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/","name":"Oregon Supreme Court Expands CGL Coverage for Construction Defects: Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Company - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-05-13T22:03:52+00:00","dateModified":"2025-05-13T22:03:56+00:00","description":"Oregon Supreme Court\u2019s decision is a landmark for those insured under CGL policies, particularly in the construction industry","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/cgl-coverage-expands-construction-defects-oregon-supreme-court\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3Ng7","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/904339","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=904339"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/904339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":904340,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/904339\/revisions\/904340"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=904339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=904339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=904339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}