United Fire Lloyds v. JD Kunz Concrete Contractor, Inc., and ExploreUSA RV, Ltd.
Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) | 2023
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A concrete contractor's commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy was required to cover construction defects from poor workmanship on a 12-acre concrete project. The insurance company tried to deny coverage using contractual liability, your-work, and your-product exclusions, but the Texas Court of Appeals ruled those exclusions did not apply. The court enforced the policy and required the insurer to indemnify the contractor. This matters because it protects subcontractors: your CGL policy should cover defect claims unless the exclusion language is crystal clear.
Key Takeaways
- •CGL policies cover construction defects from poor workmanship by default—exclusions must be explicit and unambiguous to deny coverage
- •Standard exclusions like 'your-work' and 'your-product' may not eliminate coverage for defects; courts interpret them narrowly in your favor
- •Keep your insurance policy documents and review exclusion language carefully; vague or unclear exclusions are likely unenforceable against you
CGL policy provided coverage for construction defects subject to exclusions.
Frequently Asked Question
Does my general liability insurance cover defects from my poor workmanship?
Yes, typically it does. A CGL policy covers construction defects unless the policy has a clear, specific exclusion that applies. Courts interpret exclusions narrowly, so vague language won't let insurers deny your claim. Always review your policy's exclusion section and ask your agent to explain any restrictions.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
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
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
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.
Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.
Under the FTCA, Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry for contribution and indemnity claims arising from a toxic tort settlement, and the United States would be liable for contribution but not indemnity under Ohio law.