 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
1325 North Van Buren5/17/2005
eir common, everyday meaning. Paape v. Northern Assurance Co. of Am., 142 Wis. 2d 45, 51, 416 N.W.2d 665 (Ct. App. 1987). But, " esort to a recognized dictionary may be had in order to discern the plain meaning." Holsum Foods Div. of Harvest States Coops. v. Home Ins. Co., 162 Wis. 2d 563, 569, 469 N.W.2d 918 (Ct. App. 1991). Indeed, American Girl cites the definition of "accident" from Black's Law Dictionary: "'The word "accident," in accident policies, means an event which takes place without one's foresight or expectation. A result, though unexpected, is not an accident; the means or cause must be accidental." 268 Wis. 2d 16, (citation omitted). Thus, we conclude that the initial grant of coverage has been triggered by 1325's claims--1325 is seeking coverage for accidentally caused property damage that it contends T-3 is legally obligated to pay.
Next, we must consider whether any exclusions in the policy preclude coverage for 1325's claims. Indiana contends that the business risk exclusions in the policy defeat coverage for the entirety of the complaint, and that its CGL policy does not provide coverage for property damage to an insured's product or work, or for faulty workmanship, which they contend is what is claimed here. 1325, on the other hand, insists that it is not seeking coverage for faulty workmanship or property damage to an insured's product or work, but instead for accidentally caused property damage to areas of the building on which work had already been completed or that were never intended to be renovated. The trial court never reached the exclusions.
Indiana contends that Exclusion K--" his insurance does not apply to ... "' roperty damage' to 'your product' arising out of it or any part of it"--has clear application in this case because the pretrial discovery shows that the renovated building is the "product" of T-3. We are not persuaded. "Product" is defined in the policy as " ny goods or products, other than real property, manufactured, sold, handled, distributed or disposed of by ... you" or " ontainers (other than vessels), materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such goods or products." It would be a stretch to consider the renovation project a "product" of T-3. Though Indiana cites foreign case law indicating that other jurisdictions have held that the "entire house is the product of the builder," see Commerce Insurance Co. v. Betty Caplette Builders, Inc., 647 N.E.2d 1211, 1213 (Mass. 1995), we are not persuaded by this reasoning, especially in light of the fact that many of those cases involved builders who construct and sell residences from scratch. Here, T-3 was managing the renovation of an existing building that it did not design or own. As we must consider the plain meaning of the language, we cannot conclude that the damage claimed was to a "product" of T-3.
Exclusion L provides that the policy does not cover "' roperty damage' to 'your work' arising out of it or any part of it and included in the 'products-completed operations hazard.'" However, it also provides that " his exclusion does not apply if the damaged work or the work out of which the damage arises was performed on your behalf by a subcontractor." Even assuming that the conditions of the exclusion are satisfied, the exception restores coverage here, as it appears that "the work out of which the damage arises was performed on [T-3's] behalf by a subcontractor."
Exclusion M provides that the policy does not cover "' roperty damage' to 'impaired property' or property that has not been physically injured, arising out of ... defect, deficiency, inadequacy or dangerous condition in 'your product' or 'your work'[,]" among other things, but also that "
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|