September 2011

   After suffering hurricane damage and having repairs made, the insured sought to assign rights under its policy to the contractor performing the remediation work. The anti-assignment provision, however, prevented the contractor's recovery under the policy. Paramount Disaster Recovery, Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98272 (S.D. Texas. Aug. 31

   The court determined there was no coverage for water intrusion based upon a comprehensive Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) Exclusion. Nat'l Am. Ins. Co. v. Gerlicher Co., LLC, 2011 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 79 (Okla. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2011).

   Gerlicher purchased a commercial building constructed by general contractor Pinion Construction

   In yet another recent construction defect case, the Illinois Court of Appeal found for coverage. See Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 2011 Ill. App. Ct. LEXIS 872 (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2011).

   Weather-Tite, Inc. hired Larson as a subcontractor to apply sealant to windows installed by Weather-Tite in a condominium

   In a January decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court found no coverage under a CGL policy for construction defects. On rehearing and after considering numerous amici briefs, the court withdrew its initial opinion and determined there was coverage for progressive property damage caused by faulty workmanship. Crossmann Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville

   The federal district court was bound by a prior decision from the Kentucky Supreme Court in deciding construction defects did not qualify as an "occurrence" under a CGL policy. See State Auto Ins. Co. v. Thomas Landscaping & Construction, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88176 (E.D. Ohio Aug. 9, 2011).

   After Thomas