An exclusion for claims arising from roofing barred coverage when the underlying plaintiff was injured after falling from a scaffold.  See Penn-America Ins. Co. v. Lavigne, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17675 (1st Cir. Aug. 24, 2010).

   Michael Daigle was hired to put a new roof on an apartment building and to seal some windows.  Daigle removed the existing roof and re-roofed the structure.  While the job was in progress, the underlying plaintiff stopped at the apartment to look for Daigle.  He climbed up the scaffolding that accessed the roof.  When a portion of the scaffold snapped, the plaintiff fell to the ground, breaking his neck. 

   Daigle held a CGL policy with Penn-America.  An endorsement excluded "any and all claims arising from roofing."  Based on this endorsement, Penn-America denied coverage.  Penn-America filed an action for declaratory relief against Daigle and the plaintiff.  The district court granted summary judgment to the insurer.

   On appeal, the plaintiff argued despite the exclusion, his injuries did not arise from roofing. The First Circuit rejected the plaintiff's argument that the term "roofing" did not encompass the task of "re-roofing."  The risks an insurer sought to avoid by excluding coverage for roofing, such as the risk of bodily injury caused by the equipment involved and the height of the work, and the risk of property damage if the roof was not properly installed, were indistinguishable from those associated with re-roofing. 

   Second, the court rejected the plaintiff's argument there was a genuine issue of fact about whether the accident arose from roofing because the project involved both roof and non-roof related repairs and because the accident was based on faulty scaffolding instead of the roof.  The phrase "arising out of" meant the accident here was excluded.  There was no dispute that the plaintiff's injuries originated from, grew out of, flowed from or had a connection with, roofing.