- Cahill, J. Gregory.
- Industry Alerts
This exclusion is standard in most CGL policies. The theory behind the exclusion is that the purpose of a CGL policy is to compensate for property damage, not to warrant the quality of an insured’s work. For example, if a roofing subcontractor defectively installs a roof and the only damage is to the roof itself, the exclusion bars coverage. However, if damage occurs to other property as well, then coverage to repair the “other” damage will typically exist. Thus, if the roofer’s defective work also leads to water intrusion which damages the interior of a building (e.g., drywall or framing damage), the exclusion will not bar coverage for the interior property damage.
This exclusion is typically coupled with a “Subcontractor Exception,” which provides that the exclusion does not apply if the damage to Your Work . . . “arises from work performed on Your behalf by a subcontractor.” The term “Your” is typically defined as the named insured.
Until recently it was unclear whether the exception would permit coverage for an additional insured (general contractor) even though the only damage was to a named insured’s (subcontractor) work. That was the issue before the Arizona Court of Appeals in Double AA Builders, Inc. v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Company, LLC.1
In 2007, Harkins Theaters hired Double AA to serve as a general contractor for the construction of a theater complex. Double AA, in turn, hired Anchor Roofing to install the roof. Double AA’s subcontract with Anchor required Anchor to have Double AA named as an additional insured under any CGL policies that would apply to the work. Anchor obtained a CGL policy from Preferred Contractors Insurance Company in which Anchor was the named insured and Double AA an additional insured.
Shortly after the project was completed the roof began to leak. At Harkin’s request Double AA replaced the roof. Double AA then sued Anchor, Preferred, and its own insurance carrier. Notably, the only damage claimed by Double AA was the cost to replace the roof.
Double AA settled with its carrier and obtained a default judgment against Anchor. Preferred answered the complaint and it and Double AA filed cross-motions on whether the “Your Work” exclusion barred coverage for the cost to replace the roof. The trial court ruled in favor of Double AA and Preferred appealed.
In reversing the trial court’s ruling the Court of Appeals held that, under an additional insured endorsement, the coverage afforded an additional insured can be no greater than the coverage afforded a named insured. The Court explained that, since the term “Your” was defined as the named insured, the Subcontractor Exception only applied if the damage was to the work of Anchor’s subcontractor. The fact that Anchor was Double AA’s subcontractor was irrelevant. The court found that if an additional insured was allowed to take advantage of the “Subcontractor Exception” where the named insured could not, the carrier’s risk would be increased without a corresponding increase in premiums. The Court directed the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Preferred.
The Court’s opinion did clarify an important point. It made clear that its holding was dictated by the nature of the claimed damages, that is, Double AA only sought recovery of the cost to replace Anchor’s defective work. Had Double AA sought recovery for damage to other property, the result would likely have been different.
1 No. 1 CA-CV 15-0375 (December 30, 2016).
This client alert is published by Dickinson Wright PLLC to inform our clients and friends of important developments in the field of construction law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. We encourage you to consult a Dickinson Wright attorney if you have specific questions or concerns relating to any of the topics covered in here.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
J. Gregory Cahill is a Member in Dickinson Wright’s Phoenix office. He can be reached at 602.889.5350 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
For a printable version of this client alert, click here.
- January 2018 Industry Alerts Summary of Amendments to Construction Lien Act
- December 2017 Industry Alerts Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure – Meet the New Rules, [Not the] Same as the Old Rules.1
- May 2017 Industry Alerts AIA Releases 2017 Construction and Design Agreements
- August 2016 Industry Alerts New Rebar Anti Dumping Investigation May Carry Major Implications for Canada’s Construction Industry
- June 27, 2016 Industry Alerts Homeowners Who Purchase Directly from Homebuilders May Seek Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees on Claims for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability
- May 2016 Industry Alerts Government Claims Against Contractors and Developers Subject to Statute of Repose Filing Deadlines, Arizona Court of Appeals Rules