Greystone Const. v. National Fire & Marine Ins., 661 F.3d 1272

Greystone Construction and Branan sued for damages to homes caused by subcontractors’ faulty workmanship and expansive soils; National denied defense.
Policyholders sought defense and coverage under CGL policies issued by American and National; district court granted summary judgment for National.
Colorado Construction defect statute § 13-20-808 was enacted after district court ruling; its retroactivity was contested.
Court analyzed whether property damage from faulty workmanship constitutes an ‘occurrence’ under standard-form CGL policies, considering the subcontractor exception to the ‘your work’ exclusion.
The panel vacated and remanded the district court’s decision to reassess in light of § 13-20-808 and Colorado law on occurrence/accident.
The opinion acknowledges mixed national authority but concludes that damage to nondefective property caused by subcontractor faults may be an occurrence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 13-20-808 apply retroactively?	Policyholders argue retroactive coverage for prior claims.	National contends no retroactive effect for expired policies.	§ 13-20-808 does not apply retroactively.
Are damages from faulty workmanship ‘occurrence’ under the CGL policy?	Damage to nondefective property may be an occurrence due to unforeseeable consequences.	Faulty workmanship is not an ‘occurrence’ absent fortuity or third-party damage.	Damages to nondefective property arising from subcontractor faults may be an occurrence.
Does the 'your work' exclusion bar coverage for nondefective damage caused by subcontractors?	Subcontractor exception to the exclusion supports coverage for nondefective damage.	Your-work exclusion precludes coverage for contractor’s own damaged work.	The subcontractor exception and coverage for nondefective damage can coexist; ‘your work’ exclusion does not foreclose coverage in this context.
What is the duty to defend given a potentially covered claim?	Pleadings potentially within policy coverage require defense.	Exclusions and rule interpretations may limit defense obligation.	Insurer duty to defend may arise where underlying pleadings could fall within policy coverage.

Hecla Mining Co. v. N.H. Ins. Co., 811 P.2d 1083 (Colo. 1991) (foreseeability governs ‘occurrence’ under earlier policy definitions)
Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 242 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2007) (construction-defect coverage and subcontractor exceptions discussed)
General Security Indemnity Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009) (construction-defect ‘accident’ and coverage limits under Colorado law)
Adair Group, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 477 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2007) (policy coverage distinctions in construction-defect context)
J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So.2d 871 (Fla. 2007) (clarifies property damage vs. defective-work damage in coverage analysis)