ILNews

High court divided on faulty workmanship coverage under CGL policy

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The high court split on whether an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability policy covers an insured contract for faulty workmanship of its subcontractor.

In Sheehan Construction Co., Inc., et al. v. Continental Casualty Co., et al., No. 49S02-1001-CV-32, Justices Robert Rucker, Brent Dickson, and Theodore Boehm reversed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurers on grounds that there was no damage to the property and thus there was no “occurrence” or “property damage.”

This class-action suit involves homeowners in a subdivision in which Sheehan Construction Co. was the general contractor. The homeowners had leaking windows, water damage, and other issues caused by the faulty workmanship of Sheehan’s subcontractors. During the period at issue, Sheehan was insured under a CGL policy by Continental Insurance Co.

The class settled with Continental. Continental filed declaratory judgment that it wasn’t obligated to indemnify Sheehan; Sheehan and the class filed a third-party complaint against Indiana Insurance and MJ Insurance, Sheehan’s insurance broker. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers and MJ Insurance. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The high court had to decide whether faulty workmanship fits within the insurance policy’s definition of “occurrence” under standard CGL policies. Jurisdictions have been split on this matter – some held it’s not an occurrence because it doesn’t constitute an “accident”; others have found improper construction be an “accident” and therefore an occurrence where the resulting damage occurs without the insured’s expectation or foresight, wrote Justice Rucker.

The majority aligned themselves with the jurisdictions that held improper or faulty workmanship does constitute an accident as long as the resulting damage is an event that occurs without expectation or foresight. They remanded for further proceedings because none of the parties’ Trial Rule 56 materials addressed the question of whether the faulty workmanship was the product of intentional or unintentional conduct, so the trial court reached no conclusion on that. If the subcontractor’s defective work was done intentionally instead of “without intention or design” then it is not an accident, wrote Justice Rucker.

In his dissent, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard would align Indiana with those jurisdictions that have held faulty workmanship isn’t an occurrence. He wrote that these insurance policies are neither designed nor priced as coverage for whatever demands the insured may face in the nature of ordinary consumer claims about breach of warranty. He also joined Justice Frank Sullivan’s dissent, in which the justice views an “occurrence” under a CGL policy as accidental damage caused by an insured or insured’s subcontractor to property owned by third parties, but not the costs of repairing defective work. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT