Here we are again. When last writing on this topic in 2018, courts within the commonwealth consistently ruled that faulty workmanship and negligent construction do not rise to the level of an “occurrence” in commercial general liabilities (CGL) policies. That is, until faulty workmanship becomes an occurrence by virtue of a fortuitous event—such as flooding—“where the claim is for damage to property not supplied by the insured and unrelated to what the insured contracted to provide.” For anyone who has been paying attention, the obvious conclusion is that the Pennsylvania Superior Court took a significant leap from the Indalex plank to fashion a ruling where insureds can attempt to commandeer coverage for their faulty work. At some point, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will need to right the ship that its intermediary appellate court has steered off course.

The notion that faulty workmanship is not a covered occurrence under CGL policies was cemented in 2006 by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner U.S. v. Commercial Union Insurance, 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006), however this is no longer revelatory. For those relatively sane attorneys who do no revel in policy interpretation, then it is worthwhile to provide a brief history of why poor workmanship is not accidental.