Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 23-79-155 (2020)

Commercial general liability insurance

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. A commercial general liability insurance policy offered for sale in this state shall contain a definition of “occurrence” that includes:
    1. Accidents, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions; and
    2. Property damage or bodily injury resulting from faulty workmanship.
  2. This section is not intended to restrict or limit the nature or types of exclusions from coverage that an insurer may include in a commercial general liability insurance policy.

History. Acts 2011, No. 604, § 2.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2011, No. 604, § 1, provided:

“Findings and purpose.

“(a) It is found and determined by the General Assembly that:

“(1) Arkansas court decisions have caused uncertainty over whether the coverage provided to an insured under a commercial liability insurance policy will include damages caused by faulty workmanship;

“(2) Insurance consumers purchase commercial liability insurance coverage for substantial premiums in good faith for the express purpose of limiting their liability for faulty workmanship; and

“(3) An insurer should not be allowed to collect premiums to provide coverage against defects and then contest, deny, or fail to pay claims caused by faulty workmanship unless the insurer and insured have freely negotiated a specific exclusion from the coverage.

“(b) It is the purpose of this act to allow an insurance consumer to safely purchase commercial liability insurance coverage at a fair price to insure against the risk of property damage or bodily injury resulting from faulty workmanship.”

Case Notes

Retroactive Operation.

In an action arising from the subcontractors' faulty work on a home, the district court properly dismissed the general contractor's breach of contract claim against the insurer because defective work resulting in damages only to the work product itself was not an “occurrence” as defined in the commercial general liability policy under Essex. The court of appeals could not retroactively apply this section, which overruled Essex; instead, the insurance policy was governed by the law in effect at the time of its issuance. J-McDaniel Constr. Co. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 761 F.3d 916 (8th Cir. 2014).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: Columbia Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Cenark Proj. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 2016 Ark. 185, 491 S.W.3d 135.
Columbia Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Cenark Proj. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 2016 Ark. 185, 491 S.W.3d 135. · cites it 18× “Ark. Code Ann. § 23-79-155 (Repl. 2014). The General Assembly specifically found that our decisions had caused uncertainty over whether CGL policies covered damages caused by faulty workmanship.”
Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Ins., 882 F.3d 952 (10th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “2008) (holding that defective construction resulting in damage only to the insured’s work product itself is foreseeable and thus not an “occurrence” under the CGL policy), superseded by statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 23-79-155 (a)(2) (2011) (requiring CGL insurance policies to define…”
S.E. Arnold & Co., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2016 Ark. App. 587, 507 S.W.3d 553. · cites it 4× “” See Ark. Code Ann. § 23-79-155 (Supp. 2015). The parties appear to agree that the insuring language in Arnold’s CGL policy was triggered.”
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nwa Restore-It Inc., 2025 Ark. App. 218, 710 S.W.3d 475. · cites it 7× “The court granted 2 NWA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, relying on the plain language of the Policy and Arkansas Code Annotated § 23-79-155 (Repl. 2014). Nationwide appealed.”
Star Ins. Co. v. Trinity Prop. Mgmt., LLC, No. 2:20-cv-02160 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 5, 2021). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to Arkansas Code Section 23-79-155: b. The definition of “occurrence” also includes “bodily injury” and “property damage” resulting from faulty workmanship; and b.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.