X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Primary Plumbing Services Inc. (PPS), appealed the trial court’s rendition of summary judgment in favor of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London (Lloyd’s), in Lloyd’s suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not owe a duty to defend or a duty to indemnify PPS for claims arising out of PPS’ alleged negligent installation of a lavatory. Lloyd’s issued a commercial general liability insurance policy to PPS. Under the terms of the policy, Lloyd’s agreed to pay for any sums that PPS became “legally obligated to pay as damages because of”bodily injury’ or”property damage’ to which the insurance applies.” The underlying lawsuit arose out of PPS’ installation of six lavatories in the restrooms of Sam’s Irish Pub. Although the project specifications called for the lavatories to be installed on built-in counters, at least one of the lavatories was installed as a wall-hung lavatory. After PPS completed the installation of the lavatories, the wall-hung lavatory fell and injured Ronna Pangarakis. Pangarakis filed suit against PPS, alleging that she “was seriously and permanently injured as a result of the negligence of [PPS].” Lloyd’s filed suit against PPS seeking a declaration that it did not owe a duty to defend or a duty to indemnify PPS in the underlying lawsuit because the policy did not provide coverage for an “expected or intended injury.” HOLDING:Affirmed. PPS contends that the trial court erred in granting Lloyd’s summary judgment motion on the grounds that the underlying petition did not allege an accident within the policy’s coverage and did allege an “expected or intended injury” or loss or damage “involving a construction defect.” PPS also contends that the trial court erred in granting Lloyd’s summary judgment motion on the grounds that Lloyd’s did not owe PPS a duty to indemnify because Lloyd’s did owe PPS a duty to defend and that genuine issues of material fact existed as to Lloyd’s duty to defend. The court notes that the exclusion in the policy broadly applies to “any claim for loss or damage.” Thus, the court finds that Pangarakis’ claim seeking recovery for bodily injury allegedly caused by PPS’ negligent installation is a claim for damage to which the exclusion applies. Therefore, the court finds that PPS’ argument that the exclusion does not apply because “installation has nothing to do with construction” necessarily fails. The court reasons that, regardless of the specific word used by Pangarakis, the factual allegations in her petition establish that she is essentially alleging that PPS negligently constructed, built or assembled the lavatory in question. By including within the policy a construction defect exclusion, which by its terms applies to any claim for loss or damage involving a construction defect caused by the insured, the court finds that the insured’s employees, or the insured’s subcontractors, the parties intended to exclude from coverage any claims for loss or damage arising out of PPS’ construction, assembly, or installation of plumbing fixtures. The court holds that there is nothing in the construction defect exclusion suggesting that the exclusion does not apply to a claim for bodily injury as a result of PPS’ negligent or substandard installation of a lavatory. Consequently, the court holds as a matter of law that Pangarakis’ alleged injuries constitute a loss or damage involving a construction defect caused or contributed by PPS or its employees and that the construction defect exclusion unambiguously applies to the underlying claims. Accordingly, the court further holds that the trial court did not err in granting Lloyd’s summary judgment motion on the grounds that Lloyd’s did not owe PPS a duty to defend. Having held that Lloyd’s did not owe PPS a duty to defend PPS in the underlying lawsuit, and because the same reasons that negate Lloyd’s duty to defend likewise negate any possibility that Lloyd’s will ever have a duty to indemnify PPS for the underlying claims, the court concludes that the trial court did not err in granting Lloyd’s summary judgment motion on the grounds that it did not owe PPS a duty to indemnify. OPINION:Jennings, J.; Nuchia, Jennings, and Higley, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.