Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.

242 S.W.3d 1 | Texas Supreme Court | 2007

enforcedCited 344 timesFLAGSHIPTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

Allegations of unintended construction defects may constitute an 'accident' or 'occurrence' under a CGL policy, and damage to a homebuilder's own work may constitute 'property damage' triggering the duty to defend.

Defective construction or faulty workmanship damaging only the general contractor's work is 'property damage' under the CGL policy.

Texas Supreme Court, 2007

Related Cases

Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers

2009enforced

A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.

Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison

2002enforced

A general contractor owes a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee for fall protection when it retains actual control over safety measures, and the evidence sufficiently supported findings of negligence and gross negligence.

Rory v. Continental Insurance

2005enforced

Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

2009remanded

The court reversed the district court's denial of preliminary injunction, finding ATA likely to succeed on FAAA preemption claims because many concession agreement provisions are not genuinely responsive to motor vehicle safety.

Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London

2010enforced

A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.

The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority

2017enforced

An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.