An article recently came out in the "Construct" journal, put out the Construction Litigation Committee of the ABA, entitled "State Courts Trend: Coverage for Faulty Workmanship." This article is similar to an earlier blog post analyzing the Ninth Circuit decision entitled Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc. (9th Cir. 2004) and concludes:
In short, courts generally conclude that claims requiring only the replacement of the subcontractor's defective work -- and no more -- are not covered under a CGL policy because there is no property damage. Only when the claim involves extraneous damage caused by the subcontractor's work will the property damage term be satisfied and thus provide potential coverage.
. . .
The majority of state supreme courts that have confronted these coverage issues have concluded that the insurance industry intended to expand coverage for unintentional property damages caused by subcontractors to the contractor-insured's completed project.
This article does not appear to analyze Burlington, but references several relatively new 2007 cases.
