less..
This case was a declaratory judgment action in which an insurer sought a declaration that it was not obligated to indemnify its insured, a general contractor who built homes. The policy covered property damage caused by an "occurrence," which was defined as an "accident." That coverage was limited by numerous exclusions, including an exclusion that excluded coverage for damage to the insured's property and work. All parties moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, concluding that the only property damaged was to the structural components of the homes and, therefore that there was no occurrence or property damage under the policy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

The Indiana Supreme Court disagreed. It found the key to the definition of "occurrence" was that it implied a "lack of intentionality."


The Court then described a second rationale supporting its conclusion -- the above-described exclusion. The Court noted that it was required "to read the pertinent provisions of insurance policies together" and that there would be "no reasons" for the exclusion if the insuring provisions did not confer an initial grant of coverage.

Because none of the parties' summary judgment materials address the question of whether the faulty workmanship was the product of intentional or unintentional conduct, the trial court reached no conclusion on this point. Therefore, the Court remanded the matter back to the trial court.

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
Download a copy of this article here