Fletch's Sandblasting and Painting, Inc. v. Colony Insurance Company, 1:15-cv-00490

Fletch’s Sandblasting and Painting (insured) seeks a declaration that Colony Insurance must defend and indemnify it for a negligence claim brought by subcontractor Thick Tech in a related Maine action.
Thick Tech alleges Fletch’s negligently prepared surfaces before Thick Tech applied an intumescent fireproofing product, causing the coating to fail and forcing Thick Tech to perform corrective work and incur costs.
Thick Tech’s operative claims include negligence (relevant here) and contract-based claims; the negligence claim seeks recovery for time and materials spent remediating Fletch’s allegedly defective workmanship.
Colony’s CGL policy covers damages for bodily injury or property damage only if caused by an "occurrence" (defined as an accident) and contains an exclusion for property damage to the particular part of property that must be repaired or replaced because "your work" was incorrectly performed.
Colony moved for summary judgment arguing (1) there was no covered "occurrence" because the claim is for defective workmanship, not accidental damage, and (2) even if an occurrence, the policy’s "your work" exclusion bars coverage for costs to repair the defective work.
The district court granted Colony’s motion, concluding Thick Tech’s claim sought to recover the cost of repairing Fletch’s defective work (non‑covered business risk) and was excluded by the policy’s "your work" exclusion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the underlying negligence claim was caused by an "occurrence" (accident)	Thick Tech’s alleged negligence caused damage warranting coverage; Fletch’s contends the complaint alleges injury rather than mere business risk	Colony: defective workmanship standing alone is not an "occurrence"; only accidental damage to other property triggers coverage	Court: No. The claim is for costs to remediate defective work, not accidental damage to other property, so no covered occurrence
Whether the policy’s "your work" exclusion bars coverage for the claimed damages	Fletch’s (and implicitly Thick Tech) argued exclusion inapplicable because all work occurred on Navy-owned property and Thick Tech seeks remediation costs, not damage to property owned by Thick Tech	Colony: Exclusion applies where claim seeks repair/restore of the particular part that was incorrectly performed, irrespective of ownership	Court: Held exclusion applies; Thick Tech seeks repair costs for Fletch’s defective work, so claim excluded even if an occurrence existed

Concord General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Green & Co. Bldg. & Dev. Corp., 160 N.H. 690 (N.H. 2010) (defective workmanship alone does not constitute an "occurrence")
McAllister v. Peerless Ins. Co., 124 N.H. 676 (N.H. 1984) (no fortuitous event where claim seeks correction of defective work)
High Country Associates v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 139 N.H. 39 (N.H. 1994) (occurrence where negligent construction caused accidental damage to other property)
Hunt v. Golden Rule Ins. Co., 638 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2011) (principles for construing insurance policies and ambiguity rules)
Lyman Morse Boatbuilding, Inc. v. North Assurance Co. of America, 772 F.3d 960 (1st Cir. 2014) (distinguishing business‑risk / defective workmanship from covered accidental property damage)