• U.S. Supreme Court Holds that the Securities Exchange Act Does Not Block Shareholders from Bringing Certain Securities Claims in State Court.
  • January 24, 2017 | Author: Daniel J. Algieri
  • Law Firm: Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C. - Roseland Office
  • In August 2016, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed a 2015 Appellate Division decision that established that, pursuant to a plain meaning interpretation of the terms as defined in the Insurance Services Office, Inc.’s (ISO) 1986 standard CGL form, consequential damages caused by a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship constitute both “property damage” and an “occurrence” as contemplated by the standard CGL policy. The court utilized a three-step process to make this determination. First, the court examined whether the underlying facts of the plaintiffs’ claims were afforded initial coverage under the relevant insurance policies. Next, the court considered whether any policy exclusions (here, the “your work” exclusion) precluded coverage. Finally, the court considered whether an exception to the exclusion applied to restore coverage. It did. Cypress Point Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Adria Towers, L.L.C., 226 N.J. 403, 425 (2016). In practice, should an insurer wish to avoid providing coverage under a CGL policy for consequential damages caused by a subcontractor’s defective performance, it should negotiate away the subcontractor exception to the “your work” exclusion in the ISO’s 1986 standard CGL form.