The appellate court vacated the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer because of the subcontractor's alleged faulty workmanship. All America Ins. Co. v. Lampasona Concrete Corp., 2019 Mass. App. LEXIS 34 (March 19,2019). 

    After construction of the hospital, the Northeast Hospital Corporation (NHC) sued he general contractor, alleging property damage to the finished first floor and other areas of the hospital. The contractor filed a third-party complaint seeking indemnification from various subcontractors, including Lampasona Concrete Corporation. for improper installation of the concrete slab that was underneath the finished first floor.

    Lampasona's insurer, All America, sued all of the defendants in the underlying case, seeking a judgment declaring that it had not duty to defend or indemnify Lampasona under the CGL policy held by Lampasona. On summary judgment, the trial court ruled that Lampasona's work on the concrete slab was inseparable from work that other subcontractors performed on other layers of the flooring system. Therefore, Exclusion j (6) applied and summary judgment was granted to All America. 

    The first floor of the hospital had three layers: a bottom vapor barrier, the concrete slab and a top layer of either tile or carpet. While Lampasona installed the concrete slab, different subcontractors installed the other two layers. In the underlying action, NHC alleged that Lampasona made multiple errors in installing the concrete slab, allowing moisture problems that caused damage to the tiles and carpet. 

    Exclusion j (6) stated that the insurance did not apply to "[t]hat particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because 'your work' was incorrectly performed on it." However the exclusion did not apply to damage "occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of 'your work'" if the work was completed or abandoned. 

    The trial court judge determined that Lampasona's work played an "integral and inseparable part in the installation of a flooring system that was comprised of multiple layers, but constituted one completed product: interior flooring for the first floor of the hospital." The judge also stated that while installing the concrete slab, "Lampasona's work was incorrectly performed on the vapor barrier." The judge concluded that j (6) excluded coverage for any damage that resulted from the pierced vapor barrier. 

    Lampasona did not install the vapor barrier on which the concrete slab was located, or the floor tiles or carpeting installed on top of the concrete slab. Therefore, the alleged damage that Lampasona caused to those parts of the hospital (e.g., the piercing of the vapor barrier and the buckling of the floor tiles) did not fall within the j (6) exclusion.

    Moreover, the j (6) exclusion did not apply to damage that occurred after Lampasona completed its work. NHC alleged that some of the damage occurred after the construction of the hospital. Such damage would not fall within the scope of the j (6) exclusion.