Legal Opinion · Dissent

Auto Owners Ins. Co., Inc. v. Newman

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided September 8, 2009No. 26450Published

1DissentJustice Pleicones

I respectfully dissent. We have held that faulty workmanship by a subcontractor which results in property damage only to the work product itself is not an occurrence within the meaning of that term in a comprehensive general liability (CGL) policy. L-J, Inc. v. Bituminous Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 366 S.C. 117, 621 S.E.2d 33 (2005). Here, the general contractor’s “work product” is the entire home, including the stucco, the framing, and the exterior sheathing. In my view, there is no coverage under the CGL policy because there is no occurrence, rather only faulty workmanship. L-J, Inc., supra.

A…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Moore & Associates, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2007
  2. High Country Associates v. New Hampshire InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
  3. Isle of Palms Pest Control Co. v. Monticello InsuranceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1994
  4. LJ, Inc. v. Bituminous Fire and Marine Ins. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2005
  5. General Security Indemnity Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2009

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API