In Pulte Home Corporation v. American Safety Indemnity Co. (2017) 14 CA5th 1086 a homeowner sued for latent construction defects.  The General Contractor sought a defense under its sub’s general liability policy as an additional insured.  The insurer denied coverage because the subcontractor’s work was completed work as opposed to “ongoing work”.  The GC sued for bad faith and won.  The Appellate Court held coverage is “when the property physically damaged”,  not when the homeowner was “financially damaged by the purchase of the home”.  In other words, if it is possible that the property was damaged during construction, then there is coverage.   (This is also similar to McMillin Management Services v. Financial Pacific Ins. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 187

Property-DisputeThe court in Albert v Mid-Century Ins. Co. (2015) 236 CA4th 1281 held that an insurer did not have a duty to defend the homeowner in a suit for encroachment arising out of the building of a fence and trimming of trees, because the acts were taken intentionally even if the damage was an accident or unintended result.  Continue Reading No Duty to Defend Encroachment Action building fence & trimming Trees (Albert v. Mid-Century Ins. (2015) 236 CA4th 1281