EVIDENCE OF SPECIFIC DATE OF CONSTRUCTION DEFECT INJURY NOT NECESSARY TO TRIGGER DUTY TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY UNDER CGL POLICY

Newsbrief

In a construction-defect coverage dispute that was decided by a trial court before the Texas Supreme Court’s decision rejecting the manifestation rule and adopting an “actual injury” approach in Don's Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 267 S.W.3d 20, 24–25 (2008), the Austin Court of Appeals recently reversed the trial court’s ruling that the policy did not cover the claim – an analysis which had initially applied a manifestation rule.  Vines-Herrin Custom Homes, LLC v. Great American Lloyds Ins. Co., 2011 WL 6396473, Tex.App.-Dallas, Dec. 21, 2011).  The court determined the actual-injury analysis did not require specific evidence, expert or otherwise, of the date the damages to the house manifested.  The court, reviewing the evidence before the trial court, determined there was sufficient evidence to find the damage occurred while the home was under construction.  It reasoned the policy covered the period of construction, which means the policy was triggered by the lawsuit for both defense and indemnity.

Jump to Page

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.