Q&A of the Week |
Vacuum Damaging a Couch
An Iowa subscriber recently asked the following question:
Our policy holder is a cleaning company. An employee put a vacuum on the couch standing up, and turned it on, and then used the hose attachment from the vacuum to clean a different section of the couch. While the employee was cleaning a different section of the couch with the hose, the vacuum bristles were spinning and damaging the section of the couch that it was standing up on.
Does the exclusion in the liability policy pertaining to property damage that has to be repaired because the insured's work was incorrectly performed on it apply?
ANSWER: That exclusion will not apply since it refers to property damage to that particular part of property that has to be repaired because the work was incorrectly performed on it. The employee was not actually performing work on the section of the couch when it was damaged. So, the exclusion, being read strictly, would not apply.
How about the care, custody or control exclusion? The problem here is that the exclusion is particular to "the" insured and an employee is not an insured for property damage to property in the care of or over which physical control is being exercised for any purpose by an employee. Since the named insured is not the employee, the exclusion would not apply to the named insured either.
So, this may be a case where the details of the incident cause it to fall into the cracks between exclusions. It is a case of the employee's work damaging another's property and this is the purpose of the liability coverage.
This is presuming that the damage occurred before the employee was finished with the work and so, the damage to your work exclusion would not apply since that is only for completed operations claims. |
|
Litigation Watch |
Car Wash Damages
The insurer brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured car wash installer in an underlying lawsuit arising from a malfunctioning car wash. This case is Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Southeastern Car Wash Systems, 2016 WL 3027374.
Miller operates a car wash distribution and installation business in Tennessee. Miller was insured through a general liability policy issued by Auto-Owners. Miller contracted with Evans to install and maintain a car wash unit; after installation, the car wash began to malfunction. This caused damage both to the unit and customers' autos. Evans incurred substantial losses, including damage to the car wash unit, lost income, reputational damage, and payments to customers for the damage done to their cars.
Evans sued Miller seeking compensation and Miller sought coverage from Auto-Owners. The insurer filed this declaratory judgment action.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee noted the wording of the general liability policy as to the insuring agreement and said it had to see if the complaints against the insured met the insuring agreement language. The court saw three claims that it said it would examine.
The first claim was for damage to the car wash. The insurer did not contest this claim.
The second claim was for loss profits due to loss of use of the car wash. Auto-Owners argued that this was an economic loss, not property damage as defined in the policy. The court responded that the insurer's argument would essentially read the phrase "all resulting loss of use" out of the definition of property damage as it appears in the policy. Thus, the court declined to hold that a claim for lost income as a result of loss of use of damaged property does not fall within the scope of property damage as defined in the policy.
The third claim was for payments to customers for vehicle damage. Auto-Owwners argued that these payments are economic losses that Evans voluntarily incurred by paying unknown third-parties for damage to their vehicles. The court did agree with Auto-Owners that the payments represents economic, rather than tangible, losses, but the court continued, this does not mean that the payments are not covered by the policy. The court pointed out that the insuring agreement states that the insurer will defend the insured against lawsuits seeking damages because of property damage. This meant to the court that it was not a stretch to conclude that payments made by a business to cover damage to its customers' vehicles are made on account of the damage, or that the payments follow as a consequence of that damage. The court concluded that a straightforward reading of the policy does not, as a matter of law, foreclose the possibility that the claim gives rise to a duty to defend.
Having found that three of the claims alleged against the insured are within the bounds of the policy's coverage, the court then examined the policy for any possible applicable exclusions. Auto-Owners points to two exclusions that it believes apply to Evans's claim for damage to the car wash unit: the your work exclusion and the your product exclusion.
The court ruled that the allegations satisfy the conditions of the your work exclusion. Miller's installation of the car wash constitutes work performed by the insured; the car wash installation had been completed; the car wash sustained damage arising out of some aspect of the unit or its installation; and all of these vents took place on the premises of Evans's service station. Any claim for damages to the car wash itself is thus excluded from coverage under the policy.
As for the your product exclusion, the court found that the car wash fitted comfortably within the policy definition of "your product". Accordingly, the physical damage to the car wash is excluded from the coverage for property damage and so, Evans's claim seeking recovery for damage to the car wash is precluded.
In conclusion, because Auto-Owners failed to show that all of the claims alleged against Miller in the underlying complaint are unambiguously outside the scope of coverage provided by the policy, and thus, has failed to establish as a matter of law that Auto-Owners has no duty to defend Miller against the claims, the court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment.
Editor's Note: This case is presented for the court's extensive examination of the issues that arise when a car wash damages vehicles. Lost profits and payments to customers for vehicle damage resulting from a car wash's malfunctioning are all discussed by the court and case law from Tennessee, Texas, the 9th Circuit, Minnesota, and Washington is cited. The court's discussion of economic losses as property damage is also worth perusal. |
|
Fraud of the Week |
False Claim Fraud – Washington
AMOUNT: $8,900
A Washington man pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree attempted theft and was sentenced to twenty-four hours of community service, a $1,000 fine, and $800 in court costs. The man had an accident in March 2014 where he rear ended a vehicle. When he filed the claim with his carrier, he learned he had no physical damage coverage and the claim was denied. A few days later he purchased the physical damage coverage. In April he lowered the deductible to $100. A few days after that he claimed his vehicle was damaged by a hit-and-run driver while the vehicle was parked outside his home. The carrier contacted the other party in the first accident and reviewed pictures of the vehicle, which showed identical damage to what the insured was now claiming was due to the hit and run.
|
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to FC&S |
FC&S Online is the unquestioned authority on insurance coverage interpretation and anlaysis for the P&C industry. FC&S offers unbiased analysis and interpretation and keeps you current on the latest ISO and AAIS revisions. Providing instant access to the very latest information, FC&S is the resource that agents, attorneys, brokers, risk managers, underwriters, and adjusters rely on to research commercial and personal lines coverage issues. |
• |
Quickly and accurately determine coverage under a policy at the time of loss |
• |
Research coverage issues and interpretations, including court cases |
• |
Access experts live to discuss specific situations |
• |
Find answers to questions based on real-world claims disputes |
• |
View and print ISO forms |
• |
Access updates on breaking litigation and bureau developments |
|
|
|
Join Us Live! |
FC&S editors regularly conduct web-based demos of the service. Feel free to contact Christine Barlow, cbarlow@alm.com, for more information. They only take 30 minutes, a small investment of time that will help you learn all that FC&S Online has to offer. |
|
Contact Us |
As always, your comments and questions are welcome.
Contact us at:
FC&S Department
Phone: 800-543-0874
Fax: 859-692-2246
Email: eAlerts@nuco.com |
|
|