Greenway Village South Condominium Associations I, II, III and IV, Inc. v. Roach
| Decision Date | 08 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1294,80-1294 |
| Citation | 397 So.2d 954 |
| Parties | GREENWAY VILLAGE SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS I, II, III AND IV, INC., Appellants, v. David ROACH et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Glenn of Albury, Park & Glenn, West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Samuel H. Adams of Adams, Coogler, Watson & Smith, P. A., West Palm Beach, for appellee Integon General Ins. Corp.
This is an appeal from a judgment finding that there was no coverage under a policy of liability insurance issued to the appellee, David Roach, by the appellee, Integon General Insurance Company.
In 1975 Greenway Village South Condominium Associations I, II, III, and IV hired David Roach, a contractor, to install gutters and downspouts on their buildings to facilitate drainage. Mr. Roach's installation technique caused extensive damage to certain metal strips which sealed a portion of the mansard roofs of the buildings, and as a result the roofs lost their water-tight character and the strips had to be replaced. The proof showed that Roach's employees actually used heavy wrecking bars to forceably pry up the metal seals. The damage was not discovered until after Roach had finished installing the gutters.
Greenway brought suit for damages against Roach and his liability insurer, Integon General Insurance Corp. In a non-jury trial, the trial court found Roach liable to appellants for the property damage caused to the roofs:
(T)he court is convinced from the preponderance of the evidence and the clear and convincing evidence that the manner in which these wrecking bars were used caused the leaks in all of these respective buildings.
However, Integon contended and the trial court agreed that exclusion (p) of Integon's policy precluded any finding of its liability to Greenway. Exclusion (p) provides:
This insurance does not apply ... (p) to bodily injury or property damage included with the completed operations hazard or the products hazard.
"Completed operations hazard" is earlier defined as follows:
"completed operations hazard" includes bodily injury and property damage arising out of operations or reliance upon a representation or warranty made at any time with respect thereto, but only if the bodily injury or property damage occurs after such operations have been completed or abandoned and occurs away from premises owned by or rented to the named insured. "Operations" include materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection therewith. Operations shall be deemed completed at the earliest of the following times:
(1) when all operations to be performed by or on behalf of the named insured under the contract have been completed.
(2) when all operations to be performed by or on behalf of the named insured at the site of the operations have been completed, or
(3) when the portion of the work out of which the injury or damage arises has been put to its intended use by any person or organization other than another contractor or subcontractor engaged in performing operations for a principal as a part of the same project.
Operations which may require further service or maintenance work, or correction, repair or replacement because of any defect or deficiency, but which are otherwise complete, shall be deemed completed. (Emphasis supplied).
In support of the trial court's ruling, Integon relies on Sandpiper Construction Co., Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 348 So.2d 379 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). 1 In Sandpiper, the roof of a building collapsed six months after construction had been completed, and the owner sued both the contractor and the contractor's insurer for damages. Based on an exclusionary clause identical to exclusion (p), the insurer was held not liable. Greenway, in turn, argues that the two cases are distinguishable because in S...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Biscayne Roofing Co. v. Palmetto Fairway Condominium Ass'n, Inc.
...express warranty as well as its implied warranties of fitness and merchantability. Accord Greenway Village South Condominium Associations I, II, III & IV, Inc. v. Roach, 397 So.2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA), pet. for rev. denied sub nom. Integon General Insurance Corp. v. Greenway Village South Con......
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Envtl. House Wrap, Inc.
...barred coverage because "operations had been completed prior to collapse of the roof"); Greenway Village South Condominium Ass'ns, Inc. v. Roach, 397 So. 2d 954, 956 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1981) (holding completed operations exclusion did not bar coverage where "the insured negligently . ......
-
Tucker Const. Co. v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co.
...by store owners premises-operations liability coverage); Greenway Village South Condominium Assoc., I, II, III and IV, Inc. v. Roach, 397 So.2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (where contractor negligently installed gutters and down spouts so that the seals between the roof and walls were destroyed......
- Integon General Insurance Corp. v. Greenway Village South Condominium Assns., I,Ii,Iii, & IV, Inc.
-
The "other property" problem applying the economic loss rule to construction contracting claims.
...liability coverage was found for the back yard erosion. In Greenway Village South Condominium Ass'ns. I, II, III and IV, Inc. v. Roach, 397 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), a contractor hired to install gutters and downspouts damaged metal strips sealing the existing mansard roofs. The damag......