Younglove Construction, LLC v. PSD Development, LLC, 767 F. Supp. 2d 820

Younglove contracted PSD to design/build an animal feed plant; CAS was a subcontractor for Younglove and designed the grain bin.
The grain bin, including its discharge openings, was allegedly defective, causing damage to the bin and affecting corn storage.
PSD seeks damages for repair costs and diminution in plant value, plus losses from lost storage during repair; PSD does not seek lost profits.
CAS requested Westfield to defend and indemnify; Westfield intervened seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify.
This court previously held Westfield must defend CAS in the pendant litigation, but excluded coverage for PSD’s defective-construction claims; Westfield sought reconsideration.
The court grants reconsideration, finds the policy exclusions apply to PSD’s claimed lost storage damages, and ultimately grants Westfield summary judgment while denying CAS’s cross-motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PSD’s lost grain-storage damages are covered as consequential damages under the CGL policy.	PSD contends some damages may be consequential and thus covered despite contractual liability exclusion.	Westfield contends lost storage damages are contractual/business risks not covered.	Consequential losses mischaracterized; excluded by contractual liability exclusion.
Whether the contractual liability exclusion defeats coverage for PSD’s economic losses arising from defective construction.	PSD argues damages may be outside the exclusion as consequential losses.	Westfield argues the exclusion applies toPSD’s economic losses tied to the contract.	Contractual liability exclusion applies; damages are not covered.
Whether professional services exclusion or other policy terms affect coverage for PSD's claims.	PSD contends exclusions do not apply to its claims.	Westfield asserts applicable exclusions foreclose coverage.	No coverage under professional services or other exclusions for these claims.

Sharonville v. Am. Emp'r Ins. Co., 109 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2006) (public-policy and coverage related to duty to defend)
Erie Ins. Exch. v. Colony Dev. Corp., 136 Ohio App.3d 419 (Ohio App. Ct. 2000) (coverage for damage to other property; business risk exclusions)
Royal Plastics, Inc. v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 99 Ohio App.3d 221 (Ohio App. Ct. 1994) (principles governing business risks and CGL coverage)