Brake Landscaping & Lawncare, Inc. v. Hawkeye-Security Ins.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22663
8th Cir.2010Background
- Brake Landscaping sought coverage under Midwestern's primary and Hawkeye's umbrella policies for damages from spraying non-selective herbicide that killed grass on client lawns.
- Employee inadvertently sprayed Lesco Prosecutor instead of Lesco Momentum, causing property damage to multiple brake client properties.
- Brake incurred approximately $1.2 million to re-sod/re-seed the affected lawns.
- Policies contain business risk exclusions: 5) damage to the part of property Brake was performing operations on, arising from those operations; 6) damage to part of property that must be restored because Brake's work was incorrectly performed.
- Products-completed operations hazard exception exists but only under the exclusion for subparagraph (5) (umbrella) or subparagraph (6) (primary) and only when damage occurs after work is completed.
- District court granted summary judgment for Hawkeye and Midwestern, ruling no coverage under the exclusions or, alternatively, no applicable products-completed operations hazard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the business risk exclusions exclude coverage? | Brake argues exclusions do not apply to damage to lawns caused by its work. | Hawkeye and Midwestern contend the exclusions bar coverage for the damaged lawns. | Yes; exclusions apply, barring coverage. |
| Does the products-completed operations hazard exception apply? | Brake argues the exception restores coverage for completed work damages. | Insurers argue damage occurred before Brake's work was completed, so exception does not apply. | No; exception does not apply because damage occurred while work was in progress. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schauf v. Columbia Mut. Ins. Co., 967 S.W.2d 74 (Mo. 1998) (particular part of property subject to insured's work excludes damage to that part)
- Wood v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 980 S.W.2d 43 (Mo.Ct.App. 1998) (external authorities used for similar fact patterns in insurance disputes)
- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Ratliff, 927 S.W.2d 531 (Mo.Ct.App. 1996) (insurer coverage issues guided by analogous decisions)