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
THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE QUI TAM ACTION ALLEGING THE VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK FALSE CLAIMS ACT BY SETTING INTEREST RATES ON BONDS PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT). ​
AN EMAIL INFORMING PLAINTIFF THAT DEFENDANT LAW FIRM WOULD NOT APPEAL THE RULING OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPELLATE PANEL DID NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY TERMINATE THE FIRM’S REPRESENTATION OF PLAINTIFF IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION MATTER (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WET CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES ARE REVIEWED UNDER “NOTICE PLEADING” STANDARDS WHERE ONLY FAIR NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM AND ITS GROUNDS ARE REQUIRED; HERE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THAT A SUPERVISOR STATED SHE RECEIVED HIGH EVALUATIONS BECAUSE SHE ENGAGED IN SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HER SUPERIORS WAS SUFFICIENT TO SURVIVE DISMISSAL (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).
FAMILY OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT UPHELD, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, ASSAULT SECOND AND CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF BREATHING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
CITY OF NEW YORK PROGRAM TO MOVE HOMELESS INTO APARTMENTS VIOLATES THE URSTADT LAW BY IMPOSING RENT CONTROLS ON BUILDINGS NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WAS A RECURRENT DANGEROUS CONDITION; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT AS A WITNESS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE, THE BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL, DESPITE LATE NOTIFICATION; THE DIRECTED VERDICT WAS REVERSED (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...