Mapp Construction LLC v. Paragon Steel Services, Inc, 3:09-cv-00625

MAPP Construction LLC contracted Paragon Steel Services, Inc. to construct a metal building roof at Normandy Square Mall in Lafayette, Louisiana, where defects and leaks were noted before project completion.
Paragon attempted repairs; their efforts failed, leading Normandy Square Mall and MAPP to hire L&L Erectors, Inc. for the necessary repairs.
MAPP asserted various damages and costs related to the roof defects, including subcontractor costs, roof panel replacements, equipment, prints, supervision, and insurance extensions.
Auto-Owners Insurance Company issued a Commercial General Liability policy to Paragon; the policy contains exclusions, including work product and related damage exclusions, at issue in the motion.
Auto-Owners moved for summary judgment contending the work product exclusion bars coverage for the claimed damages; MAPP and Paragon opposed.
The court granted Auto-Owners’ motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding coverage and upholding the work product exclusion as to damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does work product exclusion bar coverage for the damages claimed by MAPP?	MAPP asserts damages extended beyond Paragon's work, seeking coverage.	Auto-Owners contends the work product exclusion excludes damages to Paragon's own work and related consequences.	Yes, exclusion bars coverage for claimed damages.
Is there evidence of damage to property other than Paragon's work that would trigger coverage?	MAPP points to insulation damage not within Paragon's scope as potential other-property damage.	No admissible evidence of such damages or costs; damages center on Paragon's work.	No genuine issue; no proven other-property damage.
Are additional insurance premiums and other costs associated with extended project duration covered?	These costs are consequential damages arising from completed repairs.	Costs are tied to work product/extended duration due to repairs; exclusions apply.	No coverage for extended-premium costs; barred by work product exclusion.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standards; material facts must be in dispute)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden shifting to the non-moving party on summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (clear evidence or legitimate inferences; summary judgment standard)
Hallar Enterprises, Inc. v. Hartman, 583 So.2d 883 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1991) (liability policies are not performance bonds)
Oxner v. Montgomery, 794 So.2d 86 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 2001) (work product exclusions and related coverage principles)
Gaylord Chemical Corp. v. ProPump, Inc., 753 So.2d 349 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2000) (interpretation of insurance and consequential damages)