You are here: / / Damage to Building Caused by Faulty Workmanship Not Caused by an “Occurrence”...

Damage to Building Caused by Faulty Workmanship Not Caused by an “Occurrence” Within the Meaning of a Commercial General Liability Policy

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined that the term “occurrence” in a policy covering building construction work did not encompass damage to the building caused by faulty workmanship.  Here, a portion of an exterior wall fell to the street.  It was determined that the cause was flaws in the way the wall was constructed:

There is no “occurrence” under a commercial general liability policy where faulty construction only damages the insured’s own work …, and faulty workmanship by subcontractors hired by the insured does not constitute covered property damage caused by an “occurrence” for purposes of coverage under commercial liability insurance policies issued to the general contractor, since the entire project is the general contractor’s work … . In Baker Residential v Travelers Ins. Co. (10 AD3d 586, 587 [1st Dept 2004]), where a developer delivered and installed defective structural beams that deteriorated from water penetration due to improper installation, flashing and waterproofing, this Court held that the damages sought by the developer did not arise from an “occurrence” resulting in damage to third-party property distinct from the developers’ own “work product.” And in Direct Travel v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 214 AD2d 484, 485 [1st Dept 1995]), this Court explained that “[s]ince the claims asserted in the underlying action were for economic loss resulting from the plaintiff’s purported breach of contract, coverage was also properly disclaimed under the umbrella policy which covered only damages because of bodily injury’ [or] property damage’ . . . [c]aused by an occurrence'” … . * * *

“[T]he requirement of a fortuitous loss is a necessary element of insurance policies based on either an accident’ or occurrence'” … . As the motion court recognized, the addition of “event” or “happening” to the definition of “occurrence” did not alter the legal requirement that the “occurrence” triggering the coverage must be fortuitous. “[T]he requirement of a fortuitous loss is a necessary element of insurance policies based on either an accident’ or occurrence'” … . “[A] claim for faulty workmanship, in and of itself, is not an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy because a failure of workmanship does not involve the fortuity required to constitute an accident” … . National Union Fire Ins Co of Pittsburgh PA v Turner Constr Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 03671, 1st Dept 5-15-14

 

You might also like
Proof that a Floor is Inherently Slippery, Standing Alone, Will Not Support a Negligence Cause of Action
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE FELL OVER A WORKER WHEN SHE ATTEMPTED TO STEP OFF AN ELLIPTICAL MACHINE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
ARBITRATION AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, LIMITED COURT-REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH VACATUR OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS NOT AVAILABLE UNDER CPLR 5015, VACATUR WAS AVAILABLE UNDER CPLR 317.
THE NYC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DESIGNATION OF TWO BUILDINGS AS PART OF A PROTECTED LANDMARK HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO DEMOLISH THE TWO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT CONDOMINIUMS (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS SUIT BY A NEW JERSEY CASINO TO RECOVER DEFENDANT’S GAMBLING DEBT, DEFENDANT RAISED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ALLEGING PLAINTIFF CASINO VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF NEW JERSEY’S CASINO CONTROL ACT (CCA); THE CONTROLLING AGENCY, THE CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION (CCC), HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THOSE COMPLAINTS; THE COMPLAINTS MUST BE RULED ON BEFORE THE COURT CAN CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
ALLOWING POLICE OFFICER TO TESTIFY ABOUT VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT AT A SHOWUP WAS NOT BOLSTERING, VICTIM’S STATEMENT WAS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS AFTER THE PARTIES’ FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A PALPABLY IMPROPER DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, I.E. A DEMAND FOR TAX RETURNS, DOES NOT WAIVE THE ABILITY TO OBJECT TO THE DEMAND ON APPEAL; DEFENDANT MAY RENEW THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE TAX RETURNS IF THE REQUIRED SHOWINGS ARE MADE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Unrecorded Purchase Money Mortgage Did Not Have Priority Over Mortgage Recorded... New York Has Not Adopted the “First Clause” Doctrine for Interpretation...