Georgia Supreme Court Defines "Occurrence" Expansively in CGL Policy
March 29, 2011
Our People
Industries
The Georgia Supreme Court recently addressed the definition of “occurrence”
in a CGL policy. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Hathaway
Development Co., Inc., 2011 Ga. LEXIS 177 (Ga. Mar. 7, 2011). The specific
issue was whether a general contractor could recover under a subcontractor’s CGL
policy for damages to neighboring property caused by work negligently performed
by the subcontractor.
Hathaway Development Co. Inc. (“Hathaway”), the
general contractor, sued its plumbing subcontractor, Whisnant Contracting Co.,
Inc. (“Whisnant”), for alleged negligence in installing plumbing work at three
jobsites. On one project, Whisnant installed a four-inch pipe instead of a
six-inch pipe; on the second project, Whisnant improperly installed a dishwasher
supply line; and on the third project, Whisnant improperly installed a pipe
which separated under pressure. Each error resulted in damage to surrounding
property. Hathaway sued Whisnant for the costs associated with the water and
weather damage to surrounding property. Whisnant failed to answer the
complaint, and a default judgment was entered.
Hathaway then filed an
action to collect from Whisnant’s insurer, American Empire Surplus Lines
Insurance Company (“AESLIC”). AESLIC denied liability, arguing that the loss
did not arise out of an “occurrence.” The policy defined an “occurrence” as “an
accident, including continuous or related exposure to substantially the same,
general harmful conditions.” Based on this definition, AESLIC argued that
Whisnant’s negligent work could not be deemed an “accident” because the work was
done intentionally. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment to
AESLIC.
The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the faulty
workmanship was covered under the CGL policy because it caused damage to
surrounding properties. Hathaway Development Co. Inc. v. American Empire
Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 686 S.E.2d 855 (Ga. App. 2009). While the Court of
Appeals found coverage for damage to surrounding property, it found no coverage
for the cost of repairing the faulty workmanship itself. Id. at 863.
The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari and found coverage for the
damage to surrounding property. Using a legal dictionary, the Court defined an
“accident” to be “an event happening without any human agency, or, if happening
through such agency, an event which, under circumstances, is unusual and not
expected by the person to whom it happens. . . . [I]n its common signification,
the word means an unexpected happening without intention or design.” Citing
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 15 (6th ed. 1990). In applying the BLACK’S LAW
DICTIONARY’s definition of “accident”, the Court held that Whisnant’s actions
constituted an occurrence under the CGL policy because the actual cause of the
harm was unanticipated, unintended and unexpected. Therefore, under Georgia
law, a construction defect can be an “occurrence” under a CGL policy where the
insured’s faulty workmanship causes unforeseen or unexpected damage to
property.