Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
deFInInGdAMAGetox1cyourWorkx1dAcontrActorisdeniedcglcoVerAgeAfterABuildingthAtheWorkedonisdAmAgedByArAinstormAcontractorinstallsroofventsonabuildingthatherstbuilt15yearsago.Althoughthecontractorinstallstheventsproperlyasevererainstormblowswaterthroughthemanddestroysabout15000worthofinsulationandceilingtiles.Thecontractorx19sinsurerdeniestheclaimonthebasisthatthecontractorhadbuiltthebuilding.x1cThisdenitelydoesnotfallwithintheintendedscopeoftheexclusionbutdoesthisexclusionstillfunctionx1dthecontractorx19sagentasks.x1cTheexclusionisintendedtopreventshoddyworkmanship.Shouldtheinsurerdefendx1dIfthewaterdamagetookplaceduringtheinstallationoftheventstheonlycommercialgeneralliabilitypolicyexclusionsthatcouldapplywouldbej5andj6.Exclusionsj5andj6applyonlytox1cthatparticularpartifthepropertydamagearisesoutofthoseoperationsorifpropertymustberestoredrepairedorreplacedbecauseyourworkwasincorrectlyperformedonit.x1dInthelatterexclusionx1cyourworkx1dwouldonlybetheinstallationoftheventsnottheconstructionofthebuilding15yearsago.Itseemsthatneitherj5andj6canapplybecausethepropertydamagewasnottothatparticularpart.Insteaddamagewastotheinsulationandceilingtileswhichwerenottheparticularpartthatwasaddressedbythecontractors.Ifthepropertydamagetookplaceaftertheventshadbeeninstalledthentheventinstallationiswithintheproducts-completedoperationshazard.Whiletheentirebuildingmaybethecontractorx19sworkfrom15yearsagoitwouldbemorereasonabletoconsiderx1cyourworkx1dastheactualjobjustnishedx14theinstallationofthevents.Itwouldbehelpfultomakethispointwithaworkordocumentationthatshowsthescopeofthework.Thustobeexcludedthepropertydamagemustbetox1cyourworkx1dx14whichwouldbetheventinstallationx14anditmustariseoutofitagaintheventinstallation.Thefactthatthecontactorhappenedtohavebuiltthebuildingshouldhavenobearingonthematter.Theintentoftheworkexclusionistoavoidpayingdamagesforworkthatdamagesitselfwhichisnotwhathappenedhere.ThisissimilartoahomeownersclaimquestionthatBigx1cIx1dVirtualUniversityexpertseldedafewyearsago.Thehomeownersfoundagreatdealonsomeusedofcefurniturethattheyusedtofurnishtheirhouse.Followingalosstheadjustertriedtousethebusinesspropertysublimitwhichappliedtopropertyusedx1catanytimeforanybusinesspurpose.x1dHislogicwasthattherewasnotimelimitandthepropertywasonceusedbyabusiness.Thesameargumentcouldbemadeforanyfurniturex14sinceitwassoldbyabusinessonecouldsayithadbeenusedforabusinesspurpose.Inthiscaseaseparationofyearssincetheoriginalworkhadbeenperformedshouldbeenoughsoitx19srathersillythatsomeonewouldtrytoimposetheexclusionforthis.BillWilsonisdirectoroftheBigx1cIx1dVirtualUniversity.ThisquestionwasoriginallysubmittedbyanagentthroughtheVUx19sAskanExpertService.AnswerstoothercoveragequestionsareontheVU.Forhelpaccessingthewebsiteortorequestlogininformationemaillogoniiaba.net.page10APublicationofIndependentInsuranceAgentsofWVGotofacebook.comIIAWVinc