subcontractor exception in Texas

2012Id .; see also Walker Eng'g v. Bracebridge Corp. , 102 S.W.3d 837, 840-41 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2003, pet. denied) (enforcing explicit waiver of subrogation in contract).

2012Id.; see also Walker Eng’g v. Bracebridge Corp., 102 S.W.3d 837, 840-41 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. denied) (enforcing explicit waiver of subrogation in contract).

2007Co., 396 F.3d 358, 362-63 (4th Cir.2005) (discussing history of the addition of the "subcontractor” exception to the "your-work” exclusion); Kalchthaler v. Keller Const. Co., 224 Wis.2d 387 , 591 N.W.2d 169, 173-74 (1999) (reviewing insurance industry publications stating that the subcontractor exception results in coverage if the work out of which the damage arose was performed by the insured's subcontractor); see also 2 Stempel on Insurance Contracts § 14[13][D] at 14-224.9 ("With [the subcontractor exception], the insurance industry essentially agreed to cover a huge portion of faulty workm

2007Co., 396 F.3d 358, 362-63 (4th Cir.2005) (discussing history of the addition of the "subcontractor" exception to the "your-work" exclusion); Kalchthaler v. Keller Const. Co., 224 Wis.2d 387 , 591 N.W.2d 169, 173-74 (1999) (reviewing insurance industry publications stating that the subcontractor exception results in coverage if the work out of which the damage arose was performed by the insured's subcontractor); see also 2 STEMPEL ON INSURANCE CONTRACTS § 14[13][D] at 14-224.9 ("With [the subcontractor exception], the insurance industry essentially agreed to cover a huge portion of faulty workm

2007Co., 396 F.3d 358, 362-63 (4th Cir.2005) (discussing history of the addition of the "subcontractor” exception to the "your-work” exclusion); Kalchthaler v. Keller Const. Co., 224 Wis.2d 387 , 591 N.W.2d 169, 173-74 (1999) (reviewing insurance industry publications stating that the subcontractor exception results in coverage if the work out of which the damage arose was performed by the insured's subcontractor); see also 2 Stempel on Insurance Contracts § 14[13][D] at 14-224.9 ("With [the subcontractor exception], the insurance industry essentially agreed to cover a huge portion of faulty workm

2007Co., 396 F.3d 358, 362-63 (4th Cir.2005) (discussing history of the addition of the "subcontractor” exception to the "your-work” exclusion); Kalchthaler v. Keller Const. Co., 224 Wis.2d 387 , 591 N.W.2d 169, 173-74 (1999) (reviewing insurance industry publications stating that the subcontractor exception results in coverage if the work out of which the damage arose was performed by the insured's subcontractor); see also 2 Stempel on Insurance Contracts § 14[13][D] at 14-224.9 ("With [the subcontractor exception], the insurance industry essentially agreed to cover a huge portion of faulty workm

2006See O'Shaughnessy, 543 N.W.2d at 104 (stating "it would be willful and perverse ... to simply ignore" the subcontractor exception that is "an affirmative statement on the part of those who drafted the policy" and "was intended to narrow the `business risk' doctrine"); O'Connor, 21-WTR CONSTR.

2006See O’Shaughnessy, 543 N.W.2d at 104 (stating “it would be willful and perverse ... to simply ignore” the subcontractor exception that is “an affirmative statement on the part of those who drafted the policy” and “was intended to narrow the ‘business risk’ doctrine”); O’Connor, 21-WTR ConstR.

2006See 2006 WL 406609, at *12 .

2006See Lennar , 2006 WL 406609, at *15 . [8] We do not address the trigger issue with respect to the Glass lawsuit because we held above that the appellees had no duty to defend in Glass because the Glass pleadings did not raise claims falling within the subcontractor exception to the A your work @ exclusion. [9] It is important to note that Pine Oak does not argue that the EIFS exclusion would not exclude coverage if valid and if a particular lawsuit does not allege damages other than from EIFS.

2006See Mid-United Contractors, 754 S.W.2d at 827 ; see also Am.

2006See Mid-United Contractors, 754 S.W.2d at 827 ; see also Am.

2006See id. at 326-27 .

2006See id. at 326-27 .

2006See 244 F.Supp.2d at 717-18 . [23] The exclusions for damage arising during construction do not contain a subcontractor exception. [24] Here, all the policies, except the ICSOP policy, contain the standard "business risk" exclusions, including the "your work" exclusion and its subcontractor exception.

2006See 244 F. Supp. 2d at 717 B 18. [23] The exclusions for damage arising during construction do not contain a subcontractor exception. [24] Here, all the policies, except the ICSOP policy, contain the standard A business risk @ exclusions, including the A your work @ exclusion and its subcontractor exception.

2006See Harken, 261 F.3d at 472-73 (citing Cowan, 945 S.W.2d at 828 ; Orkin, 416 S.W.2d at 400 ). [19] With certain exceptions, the "products-completed operations hazard" includes all "`property damage' occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of `your product' or `your work'...." [20] As we will further discuss, this exclusion now contains a subcontractor exception that has modified the exclusion. [21] One such exclusion precludes coverage for "property damage" to "that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indir

2006See Harken , 261 F.3d at 472 B 73 (citing Cowan , 945 S.W.2d at 828 ; Orkin , 416 S.W.2d at 400 ). [19] With certain exceptions, the A products-completed operations hazard @ includes all A > property damage = occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of > your product = or > your work = . . . . @ [20] As we will further discuss, this exclusion now contains a subcontractor exception that has modified the exclusion. [21] One such exclusion precludes coverage for A property damage @ to A that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors wor

2006See Harken, 261 F.3d at 472-73 (citing Cowan, 945 S.W.2d at 828 ; Orkin, 416 S.W.2d at 400 ). [19] With certain exceptions, the "products-completed operations hazard" includes all "`property damage' occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of `your product' or `your work'...." [20] As we will further discuss, this exclusion now contains a subcontractor exception that has modified the exclusion. [21] One such exclusion precludes coverage for "property damage" to "that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indir

2006See Harken , 261 F.3d at 472 B 73 (citing Cowan , 945 S.W.2d at 828 ; Orkin , 416 S.W.2d at 400 ). [19] With certain exceptions, the A products-completed operations hazard @ includes all A > property damage = occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of > your product = or > your work = . . . . @ [20] As we will further discuss, this exclusion now contains a subcontractor exception that has modified the exclusion. [21] One such exclusion precludes coverage for A property damage @ to A that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors wor

2006See id. at 307-10 .

2006See id. at 307 B 10.

2006See Lee *675 Builders, 104 P.3d at 1003 (rejecting insurer's "performance bond" argument to negate an "occurrence" because "performance bond" rationale was based on "your work" exclusion that predated subcontractor exception).

2006See Lee Builders, 104 P.3d at 1003 (rejecting insurer’s “performance bond” argument to negate an “occurrence” because “performance bond” rationale was based on “your work” exclusion that predated subcontractor exception).

2023A. Applicable law CGL policies will often exclude faulty workmanship “because that is the CGL’s structure.” Lamar Homes, 242 S.W.3d at 10 (citing 2 Stempel on Insurance Contracts § 14.01).

2023And, as set forth above, the very language of the subcontractor exception in the CGL policy states that the exception applies when the “damaged work or the work out of which the damage arises was performed on your behalf by a subcontractor.” Accordingly, we find no relevance to the other alleged breaches under the contract United Fire raises in determining whether the subcontractor exception applies according to the CGL policy. 37 damage arises was performed on your behalf by a subcontractor.” See Lamar Homes, 242 S.W.3d at 11, 14 (recognizing that by adding in the subcontractor exception, the

2023See JAW The Point., 460 S.W.3d at 603 (if the insurer proves that an exclusion applies, “the burden shifts back to the insured to show that an exception to the exclusion brings the claim back within coverage”).

1998See Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Glyn-Jones, 878 S.W.2d 132, 133 (Tex.1994) (stating rules of statutory construction).

1992Corpus Christi v. Heldenfels Bros., 802 S.W.2d 35, 40-41 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi 1990), affd, 832 S.W.2d 39 (1992); Barfield v. Henderson, 471 S.W.2d 633, 636-37 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

1992Corpus Christi v. Heldenfels Bros., 802 S.W.2d 35, 40-41 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1990), aff'd, 832 S.W.2d 39 (1992); Barfield v. Henderson, 471 S.W.2d 633, 636-37 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1971, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

1992Corpus Christi v. Heldenfels Bros., 802 S.W.2d 35, 40-41 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi 1990), affd, 832 S.W.2d 39 (1992); Barfield v. Henderson, 471 S.W.2d 633, 636-37 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

1992Corpus Christi v. Heldenfels Bros., 802 S.W.2d 35, 40-41 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1990), aff'd, 832 S.W.2d 39 (1992); Barfield v. Henderson, 471 S.W.2d 633, 636-37 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1971, writ ref’d n.r.e.).