Legal Opinion
Down Under Masonry, Inc. v. Peerless Insurance
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided April 11, 2008No. 07-235PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRainville, J.
¶ 1. April 11, 2008. Plaintiff Down Under Masonry, Inc. appeals from summary judgment and denial of its motion for reconsideration. The trial court ruled that defendant Peerless Insurance Company was not required to indemnify Down Under under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy because the act of installing the wrong type of cedar shingles on a garage roof by Down Under’s subcontractor did not cause property damage and was not a covered occurrence under the terms of the policy. We affirm.
¶ 2. In 2000, Susan and Jonathan Crane hired Down Under to construct a garage with a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for VincentSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- City of Burlington v. National Union Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1994
- Bloomer v. GibsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2006
- Sorge v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 2000
- Alpine Haven Property Owners Ass'n v. DeptulaSupreme Court of Vermont · 2003
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Vermont · 2022
- Neil and Patricia Whitney v. Vermont Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Vermont · 2015
- Frank Lamson v. Roger LamsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2017
- Coolidge v. Blackrock ConstrVermont Superior Court · 2026
- Frank Lamson v. Roger LamsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2017