United States Ninth Circuit

In a case exploring the meaning of a "known-loss" provision in a commercial general liability insurance contract, brought by a mason-subcontractor against his insurer for coverage from liability in an underlying lawsuit for faulty workmanship (cracks in stone), the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer, on grounds that plaintiff's claim was barred by the policy's known loss provision, is reversed where: 1) under Oregon law that the plaintiff's knowledge of damage to his own work did not automatically constitute knowledge of damage to the components of the structure furnished by others, but rather the correct inquiry was whether the claimed damage to the structural components was a "continuation, change or resumption" of the cracks.; and 2) defendant did not establish its contention that the damage for which the insured sought coverage was in fact a "continuation, change or resumption" of earlier cracks.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/25/2015
• Published 06/25/2015

Judges

• Kozinski

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel