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
Questions of Fact Existed About Whether Mortgage Lender Was Aware of Underlying “Foreclosure Rescue Scam”
IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM WORTHLESS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY PLED THAT GROSS NEGLIGENCE PRECLUDED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ‘SOLE REMEDIES’ CLAUSES AND THE DEMANDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO SHOW UP FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) IS A “POLICY ISSUE” WARRANTING DENIAL OF NO-FAULT BENEFITS AND THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ALLOWING HIS ATTACKER INTO HIS APARTMENT WAS AN INTERVENING ACT AND A SUPERSEDING PROXIMATE CAUSE WHICH RELIEVED THE BUILDING DEFENDANTS OF ANY LIABILITY FOR LAPSES IN SECURITY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED STOLEN PROPERTY FOUND IN THE BOILER ROOM OF A GARAGE WHERE DEFENDANT AND TWO OTHERS WERE HIDING FROM THE POLICE AFTER A MUGGING; VICTIM WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT IN COURT, DESPITE THE SUPPRESSION OF THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS COVERED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE POLICY AND ATTACHED A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE TO HER COMPLAINT; A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
BANK WHICH ISSUED AN “OFFICIAL CHECK” DRAWN ON A DIFFERENT BANK, AFTER THE CUSTOMER’S FUNDS WERE WIRED TO THAT OTHER BANK (PURSUANT TO AN AGREED ARRANGEMENT), WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE OR UNDER A MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED THEORY FOR THE SUBSEQUENT MISAPPROPRIATION OF THE CHECK (FIRST DEPT).
LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A NEW JERSEY RESIDENT IS UNTIMELY PURSUANT TO NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE, NEW YORK’S SHORTER STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS APPLIED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Ambiguous Terms Interpreted to Give Meaning to All Terms—Here Water Damage... Out-of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Injury Caused by Trash Compactor on...