Brown v. Concord Group Insurance
163 N.H. 522
| N.H. | 2012Background
- In 2003, Spencer built the home; in 2007, Browns’ home had water intrusion near a sliding door.
- Spencer performed a repair and charged $1,000; later, 2009 damage revealed extensive wood and structural damage.
- Concord Group insured Spencer; policy covers property damage from an occurrence but excludes damage to your work.
- Plaintiffs sued for coverage; the trial court granted summary judgment for Concord Group.
- The issue is whether the 2009 damage was caused by Spencer’s 2003 work or 2007 repair.
- New Hampshire Supreme Court reverses and remands, holding ambiguity on the source of damage and the scope of the exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 'your work' exclusion applies to damage to prior work due to later repair | Damage to 2003 work caused by 2007 repair; exclusion should not bar coverage. | All damage to Spencer’s work, including 2003 construction, is excluded as 'your work'. | Material fact question; exclusion not determinative at summary judgment. |
| Whether damage constitutes an 'occurrence' under the policy | Damage to Brown's wall was caused by negligent 2007 repair, an 'occurrence'. | Damage to Spencer's work product cannot be an 'occurrence'. | Whether an occurrence occurred depends on whether 2007 repair caused 2009 damage. |
| Whether 'your work' exclusion applies to discrete jobs and completion | Two distinct jobs (2003 construction and 2007 repair); exclusion should be limited to 2007 work. | Both 2003 and 2007 works are 'your work' under the policy. | Interpretation limits 'your work' to discrete completed jobs; outcome depends on source of damage. |
| Whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment given factual disputes | Evidence shows possible causation by 2007 repair; material facts exist. | Record supports exclusion and lack of 'occurrence'. | Summary judgment was improper; material factual issues remain. |
| What is the proper interpretation of 'your work' and 'products-completed operations hazard' | The 'at any time' phrase in 'your work' shows a scope limited to specific jobs. | The language supports broad interpretation of 'your work'. | Policy language requires job-by-job completion interpretation; not all work is barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 151 N.H. 649 (2005) (de novo review of summary judgment; requires material facts)
- Webster v. Acadia Ins. Co., 156 N.H. 317 (2007) (interpret policy language as a reasonable insured)
- Mosser Constr., Inc. v. The Travelers Indem., 430 F.App’x 417 (6th Cir.2011) (products-completed operations hazard guidance)
- Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Green & Co. Bldg. & Dev. Corp., 160 N.H. 690 (2010) (occurrence and damage to work product)
- State v. McDonald, 163 N.H. 115 (2011) (statutory interpretation guiding lack of broad language)