The opinion
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
05-928
CALCASIEU PARISH SCHOOL BOARD
VERSUS
LEWING CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. ET AL
**********
ON REMAND FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT
**********
APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2002-4241
HONORABLE D. KENT SAVOIE, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********
J. DAVID PAINTER
JUDGE
**********
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Jimmie C. Peters, and J.
David Painter, Judges.
REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.
Joseph A. Delafield
3401 Ryan St., Ste. 307
Lake Charles, LA 70606
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant:
Lewing Construction Co., Inc.
Michael G. Gaffney
Nolan P. Lambert
631 St. Charles Ave.
New Orleans, LA 70130
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant-Appellee:
D & T Tile and Terrazzo, Inc.
Kraig T. Strenge
P.O. Drawer 52292
Lafayette, LA 70502
Attorney for Third Party Defendant-Appellant-Appellee:
Lafayette Insurance Co.
PAINTER, Judge.
This matter1 is before us on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court for
reconsideration in light of that court’s decision in Supreme Services and Specialty
Co., Inc. v. Sonny Greer, Inc., 06-1827 (La. 5/22/07), 958 So.2d 634. The only
determination made in the original opinion in this matter that is affected by the
Supreme Services decision is this court’s finding that the policy of insurance issued
by Lafayette Insurance Company (Lafayette) to D & T Tile and Terrazzo, Inc. (D &
T) did provide coverage for the failure of the floor installed by D & T at R. W.
Vincent Elementary School. Therefore, we will consider this determination in light
of the Supreme Services case.
In its appeal to this court, Lafayette assigned as error the trial court’s
determination that its policy provided D & T with coverage for the situation at issue.
Lafayette argued that its policy excluded coverage for claims rising out of the quality
of the insured’s work, cited a policy exclusion for improperly performed work, and
an exclusion for “‘property damage’ to ‘your product’ arising out of it or any part of
it,” and “‘property damage’ to ‘your work’ arising out of it.” However, after
reviewing the policy, we found that the failure of the floor was covered under the
“Products-Completed Operations” coverage. We noted that while the policy referred
to that coverage, there was no separate endorsement or rider which specifically
described that coverage. However, the declarations sheet of the policy showed that
the coverage existed. Further, the policy stated that:
14.a. “Products-completed operations hazard” includes all “bodily
injury” and “property damage” occurring away from premises you
own or rent and arising out of “your product” or “your work”
except:
1
This court previously considered this case in Calcasieu Parish School Board
v. Lewing Construction Co., Inc., 05-928, (La.App. 3 Cir 5/31/06, 931 So.2d. 492.
(1) Products that are still in your physical possession; or
(2) Work that has not yet been completed or
abandoned.
....
17. “Your product” means:
a. Any goods or products, other than real property,
manufactured, sold, handled, distributed or disposed of by:
(1) You;
....
19. “Your work” means:
a. Work or operations performed by you or on your behalf;
and
b. Material, parts or equipment furnished in connection with
such work or operations.
In our previous consideration of this case, we found that the policy purported
to “both provide coverage for ‘products-completed operations hazard’ and apparently
to exclude coverage of the same,’” under a “work-product” exclusion for improperly
performed work. As a result, we interpreted the policy to provide coverage for the
claims made against D & T.
While this court feels that its reasoning in the original opinion herein is correct,
we are required to apply the finding of the supreme court in Supreme Services, 958
So.2d 634. In that case, the supreme court found that:
[U]nder the “work product” exclusion, the insured or its subcontractor
becomes liable for damages to its work or its product caused by its
faulty workmanship. Under the [products-completed operations hazard]
provision, damages, other than the faulty product or work itself, arising
out of the faulty workmanship are covered by the policy.
Id. at 645.
The Plaintiff claimed damages against D & T for:
(i) removal of the epoxy terrazzo floor, (ii) reimbursement of sums
expended for expert investigation of the cause of the ooze and emission
of the oily substance, (iii) reimbursement for sums expended for
remediation, removal and cleaning of the oily substance, and (iv)
reimbursement for sums expended for safeguarding and efforts to
prevent damage and injury to students, faculty, staff and visitors to the
R. W. Vincent Elementary School.
Because the claims against D & T are for the faulty product/work, we must apply the
supreme court’s ruling in Supreme Services and rule that they fall under the work
product exclusion.
Therefore, that portion of the trial court judgment finding that the Lafayette
policy provided coverage for the claims made against D & T is reversed. Judgment
is rendered finding that the Lafayette policy excludes coverage for the claims made
against D & T. The assessment of attorney’s fees against Lafayette is overturned.
Our assessment of trial costs to Lafayette is also reversed. Costs t the trial level are
to be paid equally by D & T and Key Resin. Costs on appeal are to be divided
between Key Resin and D & T. Our previous judgment in this case will not be
disturbed in any other respect.
REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.