Emcasco Ins. Co. v. L & M Development, Inc., 10807
Decision Date | 15 August 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 10807,10807 |
Citation | 372 N.W.2d 908 |
Parties | EMCASCO INSURANCE COMPANY, Prudential Insurance Company, and Farmers Insurance Group, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. L & M DEVELOPMENT, INC., also known as Wyngate, Inc., Defendant, and AID Insurance Company (Mutual), Garnishee and Appellant. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Dosland, Dosland & Nordhougen, Moorhead, Minn., for plaintiffs and appellees; argued by Duane A. Lillehaug, Moorhead, Minn.; appearance by Colleen J. Saande, Moorhead, Minn.
Nilles, Hansen, Magill & Davies, Fargo, for garnishee and appellant; argued by Duane H. Ilvedson, Fargo.
AID Insurance Company (AID) has appealed from a district court judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in an action to determine whether or not an insurance policy issued by AID to L & M Development, Inc., also known as Wyngate, Inc. (Wyngate), afforded coverage for a property damage claim against Wyngate. We affirm.
Wyngate hired independent contractors to construct townhomes which Wyngate later sold. After Wyngate sold the townhomes, shingles blown off the townhomes in a windstorm broke windows, damaged screens, and marred siding. Pursuant to homeowner's insurance policies issued by the plaintiffs to the owners of the townhomes, plaintiffs compensated their insureds for the damages to the townhomes.
The plaintiffs brought a subrogation action against Wyngate, alleging that Wyngate breached express and implied warranties that the townhomes were constructed in a good workmanlike manner, reasonably fit for continued habitation, and free from defects. During the pendency of that action, Wyngate tendered to AID the defense of the action. AID denied coverage and refused to defend. Wyngate and the plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement providing that the plaintiffs would collect damages, if any, only under the insurance policy issued by AID to Wyngate.
The trial court determined that the insurance policy afforded coverage for the underlying property damage claim and judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs. The issue on appeal is whether or not the comprehensive general liability insurance policy issued by AID to Wyngate affords coverage for the underlying property damage claim.
The insurance policy in issue provides:
"The company will pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of
Coverage A. bodily injury or
Coverage B. property damage to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence, ...
"Exclusions
This insurance does not apply:
Of the identical underscored language in exclusion (a) in a similar policy, we said in Applegren v. Milbank Mut. Ins. Co., 268 N.W.2d 114, 118 (N.D.1978):
"...
AID argues that exclusion (a) relates only to those situations where an insured assumes liability under a hold harmless or indemnity contract; that the two exceptions to the contractual liability exclusion relate to the exclusion only; and that exclusion (o) clearly excludes coverage for property damage to the work performed by the named insured.
We construed identical exclusions (a) and (o) in AID Ins. Services, Inc. v. Geiger, 294 N.W.2d 411 (N.D.1980). After adopting the reasoning and conclusion in Applegren v. Milbank Mut. Ins. Co., supra, we stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
St. Paul Surplus Lines v. Diversified Athletic
...finds that such exclusions, when read together, are confusing and must be construed against the insurer. See, EMCASCO Ins. Co. v. L & M Development, Inc., 372 N.W.2d 908 (N.D.1985); Baybutt Constr. Corp. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 455 A.2d 914 (Me.1983); McRaven v. F-Stop Photo Labs, Inc......
-
Farmland Mut. Ins. Co. v. Farmers Elevator, Inc. of Grace City, 11308
...will impose liability on the insurer and one which will not, the former interpretation will be adopted." Emcasco Ins. Co. v. L & M Development, Inc., 372 N.W.2d 908, 910 (N.D.1985) [quoting AID Ins. Services, Inc. v. Geiger, 294 N.W.2d 411, 414 (N.D.1980) ]. See also Heitkamp v. Milbank Mut......
-
Fisher v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...191 N.W.2d 274, 279 (N.D.1971). "Limitations or exclusions from broad coverage must be clear and explicit." Emcasco Ins. Co. v. L & M Devel., Inc., 372 N.W.2d 908, 911 (N.D.1985). "[W]hen the language of an insurance policy is clear and explicit, the language should not be strained in order......
-
Brunsoman v. Scarlett
...and First Nat'l Bank in Grand Forks v. Haugen Ford, Inc., 219 N.W.2d 847, 852 (N.D.1974) ]. Cf. Emcasco Ins. Co. v. L & M Development, Inc., 372 N.W.2d 908, 911 (N.D.1985) [limitations or exclusions from broad coverage in an insurance contract must be "clear and explicit" and the insurer as......
-
Chapter 5
...Bulger, Inc. v. Indiana Insurance Co., 901 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. App. 2009). North Dakota: Emcasco Insurance Co. v. L & M Development Co., 372 N.W.2d 908 (N.D. 1985) (finding coverage for breach of warranty claims based upon similar policy language). But see, Owings v. Gifford, 697 P.2d 865 (Ka......
-
CHAPTER 5 Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability (CGL) Insurance: Coverage A for "Bodily Injury" or "Property Damage" Liabilities
...Bulger, Inc. v. Indiana Insurance Co., 901 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. App. 2009). North Dakota: Emcasco Insurance Co. v. L & M Development Co., 372 N.W.2d 908 (N.D. 1985) (finding coverage for breach of warranty claims based upon similar policy language). But see, Owings v. Gifford, 697 P.2d 865 (Ka......