AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In the mid-2000s, Pulte Homes built 107 homes in Albuquerque, New Mexico, with windows supplied by Western Building Supply (WBS) and installed by another contractor. Homeowners sued Pulte for numerous construction defects, including allegations of substandard and inadequately installed windows that leaked. Pulte sought defense from Indiana Lumbermens Insurance Company (ILM), which had issued a commercial general liability policy to WBS naming Pulte as an additional insured. ILM denied coverage, leading to litigation over whether ILM had a duty to defend Pulte against the homeowners' claims (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Pulte: Argued that the claims of defective or defectively installed windows and doors constituted "property damage" caused by an "occurrence" under the policy, triggering ILM's duty to defend. Also contended that the "insured contract" exception to the policy's "contractual liability" exclusion should override the "your work" exclusion, thereby necessitating ILM's defense (paras 7, 28).
• ILM: Denied coverage, asserting that the claims did not constitute "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence" as defined by the policy. Additionally, ILM argued that the "your work" policy exclusion precluded coverage for the claims, and the "insured contract" exception did not apply to override the "your work" exclusion (paras 26, 29).

Legal Issues

• Whether claims of defective or defectively installed windows and doors in Pulte’s defense tenders to ILM constituted claims for “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the policy.
• Whether the “your work” policy exclusion precluded coverage for the occurrence with regard to Pulte’s May 2009 defense tender.
• Whether the “insured contract” exception to the policy’s “contractual liability” exclusion overrides the “your work” exclusion with regard to the May 2009 tender.
• Whether the “your work” exclusion precluded coverage after Pulte’s March 2012 defense tender, which contained claims showing that the defective or defectively installed windows and doors damaged the stucco surrounding those windows and doors (paras 1, 26-28, 30).

Disposition

• The court partially reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of ILM and remanded the case for further proceedings, determining that the March 2012 defense tender triggered ILM’s duty to defend Pulte because it contained allegations of damage to property other than the windows and doors themselves (para 34).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Timothy L. Garcia with Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil and Judge Cynthia A. Fry concurring, found that the claims in Pulte's defense tenders did constitute "property damage" caused by an "occurrence" under the policy. It was determined that the "your work" exclusion did not preclude coverage for the March 2012 tender because it involved claims of damage to property other than the insured's work, specifically the stucco around the windows. The Court disagreed with ILM's interpretation that the "products-completed operations hazard" did not apply to damages claimed to have occurred after the policy's effective dates, clarifying that the policy covered Pulte with regard to work completed by WBS before a certain date. The Court concluded that sufficient facts had been presented that, as a matter of law, triggered ILM’s duty to defend Pulte in the lawsuit as of the date of the March 2012 tender (paras 20-34).