Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by petitioners contesting a circuit court ruling that granted summary judgment to Erie Insurance, determining that its policies did not cover claims made by the plaintiff regarding defective home construction. The petitioners, comprising a construction company and its principal, argued that the policies, including a Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy, provided coverage for damages alleged by the plaintiff. The court addressed whether defective workmanship constitutes an 'occurrence' under the CGL policy, ultimately ruling that it does when caused by subcontractors, thereby reversing the lower court's decision. The court also examined various policy exclusions, finding Exclusion M inapplicable and Exclusion L not barring coverage for subcontractor work. Additionally, the court affirmed that Mr. Mamone's homeowners and umbrella policies did not cover the claims based on the 'business pursuits' exclusion. The case was remanded for further proceedings, focusing on determining coverage under the CGL policy for property damage claims presented by the plaintiff.
Legal Issues Addressed
Commercial General Liability (CGL) Policy - Definition of Occurrencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that defective workmanship by subcontractors constitutes an 'occurrence' under Pinnacle's CGL policy, reversing previous rulings that such work was not covered.
Reasoning: The court determines that defective workmanship qualifies as an 'occurrence,' aligning with the majority view in other jurisdictions.
Exclusion L - 'Your Work' Exclusionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that Exclusion L does not preclude coverage for work done by subcontractors in this case.
Reasoning: Exclusion L specifically states that coverage does not apply to 'property damage' to 'your work' unless the damage arises from work performed by a subcontractor.
Exclusion M - Impaired Propertysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reversed the circuit court's decision that Exclusion M precluded coverage, finding that it did not apply to work completed by subcontractors.
Reasoning: The court rejects the notion that one exclusion can negate what another provides.
Homeowners and Umbrella Policy - Business Pursuits Exclusionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the application of the 'business pursuits' exclusion in Mr. Mamone's policies, as the injuries arose from his professional activities.
Reasoning: The injuries claimed by Ms. Cherrington occurred while Mr. Mamone was acting in his professional capacity as an agent for Pinnacle, thus invoking the 'business pursuits' exclusion.
Insurance Coverage Interpretationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that determining insurance coverage when facts are undisputed is a legal question, and the interpretation of policy ambiguities is subject to de novo review.
Reasoning: The appeal emphasized that determining insurance coverage when facts are undisputed is a legal question, and the interpretation of policy ambiguities is also a legal issue subject to de novo review.