Rocky Mountain Presstress v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance, 960 F.3d 1255

Colorado Center hired J.E. Dunn to build an office project; Rocky Mountain Prestress, LLC (RMP) was the subcontractor that supplied and installed precast concrete and grouted connections.
Liberty Mutual issued a Builder’s Risk “all-risk” policy to the owner with an exclusion for loss "consisting of, caused by, or resulting from" defects in design, construction, materials, or workmanship, but a "resulting-loss" exception that covers loss caused by a covered peril that results from such an excluded defect.
A third-party engineer found 264 insufficiently grouted joints; regrouting repairs were performed from August 2016 to February 2017.
RMP submitted a claim for its regrouting/remediation costs; Liberty investigated and denied coverage. RMP sued Liberty in state court; the case was removed to federal court.
The district court granted summary judgment for Liberty. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that the defective-workmanship exclusion bars coverage for the costs of repairing RMP’s own defective work and the resulting-loss exception does not restore coverage for those costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether costs to repair RMP's defective workmanship are covered under the policy's resulting‑loss exception	RMP: the exception is ambiguous/circular and should cover remediation costs for the defective grouting	Liberty: the exception only restores coverage for separate, subsequent covered perils caused by the excluded defect, not for the excluded defect itself	The exclusion bars repair costs for defective workmanship; the resulting‑loss exception does not cover repairing the defective work
Whether RMP showed resulting damage to other parts of the project (beyond the defective joints)	RMP: loss investigator's note about "sinking pillars/columns" shows additional damage, which would trigger coverage under the exception	Liberty: the investigator's note is vague, secondhand, and unsupported; contemporaneous engineering reports and invoices show only joint repairs	Evidence was insufficient to create a genuine dispute; record shows only remediation of the joints, so no coverage for other damage was established
Whether RMP was entitled to more discovery before summary judgment (Rule 56(d))	RMP: lacked opportunity to develop evidence of resulting damage and should have received discovery	Liberty: RMP never invoked Rule 56(d) or sought a continuance; summary judgment was proper	RMP failed to invoke Rule 56(d); court will not remand for additional discovery—summary judgment stands

Adams-Arapahoe Joint Sch. Dist. No. 28-J v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 772 (10th Cir. 1989) (distinguishing cases where defective design or construction was itself covered)
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, [citation="508 F. App'x 733"] (10th Cir. 2013) (resulting‑loss exception covers ensuing covered peril, not the excluded defective cause itself)
KAAPA Ethanol, LLC v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 660 F.3d 299 (8th Cir. 2011) (resulting‑loss exception applies only when excluded peril leads to independent non‑excluded peril)
Viking Constr., Inc. v. 777 Residential, LLC, 210 A.3d 654 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019) (interpreting identical clause to require a covered peril separate from excluded act)
Alton Ochsner Med. Found. v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 219 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2000) (policy covers damage to other property caused by an intervening peril, not costs to "make good" defective work)
TMW Enters., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 619 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2010) (discussing limits on coverage where resulting damage is a foreseeable consequence of excluded defect)
Kesling v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 861 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (D. Colo. 2012) (excluded defective construction costs are not recoverable; resulting‑loss exception may cover damage to other parts caused by water infiltration)