explaining that the “your work” exclusion, absent a subcontractor’s exception, would eliminate a contractor’s coverage for damage to a completed project where a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship on one part of the project caused damage to another part of the project
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the “your work” exclusion, absent a subcontractor’s exception, would eliminate a contractor’s coverage for damage to a completed project where a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship on one part of the project caused damage to another part of the project
- reasoning that “a claim for ‘property damage’ requires physical injury to some tangible property other than the contractor’s own defective work”
- "Because we determine that Amelia’s claim involves no ‘property damage,’ we need not determine whether any policy exclusions or exceptions apply.”
- “Although the loss of roof tiles may be said to have ‘damaged’ the structural integrity of the roof, thereby rendering it defective, ‘there is no damage beyond the faulty workmanship’ because the defective roof has not damaged some ‘otherwise nondefective’ component of the project.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HILL,
concurring dubitante:
I believe that the significant disagreement between Judges Tjoflat and Carnes regarding which case — West Orange Lumber Co. or Pozzi Window Co. —more accurately predicts what the Florida Supreme Court would hold on the facts of the instant case militates in favor of the certification of this case to that court. Unable to persuade my brothers as to this prudent court of action, I concur dubitante in the opinion of Judge Tjoflat.