According to the Opinion, the underlying matter arose out of
a construction contract and issues related to the work performed
thereunder. The Opinion reports that a
company installed a boiler in a waste water treatment plan which allegedly did
not function properly. At some point,
the waste water treatment plant retained Knisely to service the boiler in an
attempt to improve its function.
When this failed, the waste water treatment plant commenced
an underlying suit against the installer of the boiler. The installer responded by filing a Joinder
Complaint against Knisely and other companies who performed work on the
boiler.
Acuity sought a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to
defend or indemnify Knisely with regard to the underlying action. Acuity asserted that coverage was not
triggered because the underlying Complaint did not allege an “occurrence” as
defined by the policy, the underlying Complaint did not allege “property
damage,” that coverage was precluded under the policy’s contractual
liability exclusion, and that coverage was precluded by the policy’s impaired property/property
not physically injured exclusion.
The court granted the carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgment
based upon its first contention, pertaining to an allegation that the
underlying Complaint did not allege an “occurrence” as defined in the policy
and, as such, deemed it unnecessary to address the carrier’s remaining
arguments.
Anyone wishing to review the Federal Western District Court's decision in Acuity v. Knisely may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Brigid Q. Allford of the Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania office of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.