Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Wurster Construction Co. Inc. sought a rehearing following an appellate court decision involving insurance coverage under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy from Amerisure, Inc. Wurster, engaged in construction projects, had faced issues with Dens-glas and exterior insulation finish systems (EIFS) and claimed coverage under their CGL policy. Amerisure denied the claims, leading Wurster to seek a declaratory judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of Wurster, but the appellate court reversed this decision, finding no coverage under the CGL policy for the defects in question. During the rehearing, Wurster contended that the appellate opinion incorrectly suggested a concession of defects. The court clarified that both parties agreed on the existence of defects, a fact undisputed in this appeal, and emphasized that its previous decision did not resolve underlying factual issues. The rehearing was granted solely for clarification, with the original ruling affirmed. Judges Kirsch and Crone concurred in this decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Clarification on Concession of Defects in Construction Materialssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarified that, for the purposes of the appeal, both parties agreed that the construction systems were defective, and this fact was undisputed.
Reasoning: The court clarified that, for the purposes of this appeal, both parties agree that the systems are defective and that this fact is undisputed.
Interpretation of Insurance Coverage under Commercial General Liability Policysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that Wurster Construction Co. Inc.'s claims were not covered under the CGL policy issued by Amerisure.
Reasoning: The appellate court reversed this decision, determining there was no coverage under the CGL policy for the claims in question.
Scope of Appellate Review in Granting Rehearingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted the rehearing solely for clarification purposes, affirming the original ruling without altering the substantive outcome.
Reasoning: The court granted the petition solely for clarification, affirming the original ruling.