Coverage Not Triggered in CGL Policy
We obtained summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action filed on behalf of an insurer in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. At issue was whether coverage (and an ensuing duty to defend) had been triggered under a CGL policy in connection with an underlying breach of contract action. The insured was a subcontractor who had performed work on a boiler, which had been installed as part of a larger construction project at a municipal authority’s wastewater treatment facility. The municipal authority sued the general contractor, who then joined the insured-subcontractor as an additional defendant. The District Court found that the holding and rationale from the Kvaerner decision controlled its analysis, noting that the issue in the underlying action was one of poor workmanship and that there was no averment or suggestion that the insured’s faulty workmanship caused damage to any person or property other than the boiler itself. The court concluded that the allegations raised against the insured were not allegations of an “occurrence” as defined in the CGL Policy.