National News

Viewing comments for:

CGL Extends Coverage for Injury Arising from Defective Construction

National News • May 28, 2008
Property damage resulting from defective construction is unquestionably excluded in the commercial general liability policy; but what about bodily injury? And is injury or damage caused by the ...

Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.

Subject: RE: RE: RE: Myth that the CGL is not a Warranty or Bond

Posted On: May 28, 2008, 6:18 pm CDT
Posted By: Cindy
Comment:
I've seen conflicting court opinions on whether construction defects are covered. IRMI.com often covers this topic, too. Regardless of whether the policy covers it or not, some builders are using it AS a warranty. (I've seen some insurance industry documents that specifically say it is not to be used as a warranty, but when a court says it covers defects, the court is in effect saying it can be used as a warranty, it seems.)

The homebuilders should be concentrating on building the houses right in the first place. The defects are often entirely preventable and the resulting damage by shortcuts is entirely predictable. Omission of roofing felt, flashing, etc, improper grading/drainage, all can lead to water intrusion and mold.

Whether one believes mold harms your health or not, there's no doubt that mold's job is to eat/decompose the material it grows on. That means it rots the house, compromising its structural integrity and value.

Leaks and mold are serious defects that relate to construction shortcuts and mistakes. Builders can expect to keep doing battle with their insurance carriers until the building industry can build houses that keep the water out. I'm not talking about mismatched paint here, but significant defects that any sane person would want fixed or want compensation for. The problem will not go away until the builders address quality in a meaningful way.
Subject Posted By Posted On
CGL policy discussion Calif Ex Pat
May 29, 2008, 7:36 pm
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Case misstated. Ohio $4M was NOT for Sharon Kramer
May 29, 2008, 12:30 pm
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Case misstated. Ohio $4M was NOT for bod Chris Boggs
May 29, 2008, 12:18 pm
RE: RE: RE: RE: Case misstated. Ohio $4M was NOT for bodily Mrs. Kramer
May 29, 2008, 12:12 pm
RE: Link to more on insurance & construction Cindy
May 29, 2008, 11:56 am
Link to more on insurance & construction Cindy
May 29, 2008, 11:54 am
RE: RE: RE: Case misstated. Ohio $4M was NOT for bodily inju Chris Boggs
May 29, 2008, 10:50 am
RE: RE: Case misstated. Ohio $4M was NOT for bodily injury f Mrs. Kramer
May 29, 2008, 9:57 am
RE: Case misstated. Ohio $4M was NOT for bodily injury from Chris Boggs
May 29, 2008, 7:27 am
Case misstated. Ohio $4M was NOT for bodily injury from mold Mrs. Kramer
May 28, 2008, 9:48 pm
RE: RE: RE: RE: Myth that the CGL is not a Warranty or Bond CSTE
May 28, 2008, 7:31 pm
RE: RE: RE: Myth that the CGL is not a Warranty or Bond InsIsMyPassion
May 28, 2008, 7:28 pm
RE: RE: RE: Myth that the CGL is not a Warranty or Bond Cindy
May 28, 2008, 6:18 pm
RE: RE: Myth that the CGL is not a Warranty or Bond JLP
May 28, 2008, 4:56 pm
RE: Myth that the CGL is not a Warranty or Bond InsIsMyPassion
May 28, 2008, 3:49 pm
Myth that the CGL is not a Warranty or Bond InsuranceGeek
May 28, 2008, 3:41 pm
Back to article

Post a Comment

.