United States Sixth Circuit

In plaintiff-insurance company's declaratory-judgment action to establish that it was not obligated to cover the costs that defendant incurred in repairing water damage to several houses that defendant had built as a general contractor, grant of 's judgment on the pleadings is affirmed where: 1) collateral estoppel is not applicable to the case and plaintiff is free to contest whether the policies cover the costs that defendant incurred; 2) a general contractor cannot claim CGL insurance coverage for the costs it incurs in repairing houses that are subsequently damaged due to the faulty workmanship of its own subcontractors; and 3) the district court's consideration of an alleged fungus exclusion was harmless.

Appellate Information

• Argued 11/30/2009
• Decided 02/04/2010
• Published 02/04/2010

Judges

• Before BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; SILER and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:Martin M. McNerney, King & Spalding LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Kimberly A. Kyle, Kohnen & Patton, LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Martin M. McNerney, King & Spalding LLP, Washington, D.C., Michael M. Raeber, Jessica E. Sabbath, King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, Jaron P. Blandford, McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellants. Kimberly A. Kyle, K. Roger Schoeni, Kohnen & Patton, LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.