ILNews

Judges differ on if 'property damage' occurred

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A majority of Indiana Court of Appeals judges affirmed summary judgment in favor of a homebuilder's insurance provider, insurance broker, and subcontractor's insurer, ruling the damage to the homes wasn't "property damage" as covered by the insurance policies. The dissenting judge looked to other jurisdictions to support her belief the claims would be covered.

In Sheehan Construction Co., et al. v. Continental Casualty Co., et al., No. 49A02-0805-CV-420, Sheehan Construction and a class of homeowners whose homes were damaged allegedly by negligent Sheehan subcontractors appealed the affirmation of summary judgment in favor of Sheehan's insurer, Continental Casualty, Sheehan's insurance broker MJ Insurance, and a subcontractor's insurer, Indiana Insurance.

Continental brought an action seeking a declaration it wasn't obligated to indemnify Sheehan; Sheehan counterclaimed and filed complaints against Indiana Insurance and MJ Insurance.

The homes suffered water damage including leaks around windows, discolored carpet, mold, and decay of window frames, all caused by the subcontractors' faulty workmanship.

At issue in the appeal is whether the property damage falls under the Continental and Indiana insurance policies comprehensive general liability coverage for "property damage" caused by an "occurrence."

Judges Melissa May and Patricia Riley relied on Amerisure Inc. v. Wurster Const. Co. Inc., 818 N.E.2d 998 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), and R.N. Thompson & Assn., Inc. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., 686 N.E.2d 160 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), in their affirmation of summary judgment for the insurers. These cases found damage to a construction project due to faulty workmanship or defective materials weren't considered "property damage" for purposes of CGL coverage.

Using the reasoning in R.N. Thompson - which held damage to a roof's plywood caused by excessive heat and moisture as a result of faulty workmanship was inseparable from the faulty workmanship - the damage to the homes in the instant case can't be treated as distinct from the underlying faulty workmanship that allowed the water penetration, wrote Judge May.

The majority also affirmed the trial court's holding that Sheehan's claim against MJ Insurance for negligent failure to procure insurance was barred by the statute of limitations.

Judge Elaine Brown used caselaw from Florida, New Hampshire, and Kansas to support reversal of summary judgment in favor of the insurers. In her dissent, she wrote there was a question of fact regarding whether Sheehan's claims are for "property damage" caused by an "occurrence." She would hold the type of damage suffered in the instant case may constitute "property damage," and that damage to property other than that installed by the subcontractors may constitute an "occurrence" under the policies.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

  2. Payday loans take advantage of people in many ways. It's great to hear that the courts are using some of their sins to pay money back to the community. Hopefully this will help change the culture of many loan companies, and make lending a much safer endeavor for those in need. http://lawsuitlendingnow.com/lawsuit-loans-post-settlement.html

  3. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  4. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  5. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

ADVERTISEMENT