Is there Coverage for this? Home Torn down due to [Wrong Address?]

Depending on a builder to have a builders risk policy is like expecting a four year old to brush their teeth without being told. I am sure it exists in fantasyland but i have not seen it. I have seen multiple times builders doing remodels telling my clients that they don't need one.
 
Depending on a builder to have a builders risk policy is like expecting a four year old to brush their teeth without being told. I am sure it exists in fantasyland but i have not seen it. I have seen multiple times builders doing remodels telling my clients that they don't need one.
That is the problem. They are willing to take the risk and there are no hard state requirements to enforce it. Scares me....
 
Time to speak with the County which signed off on the demolition and let the County deal with the contractor
 
Wouldn't the contractors builder risk policy cover the claim?

LOL no... People love to take insurance OFF of buildings when/before they tear down... which is good... putting insurance on a building then immediately tearing it down might be viewed as.... you know a little sketch...
 
This is a general liability risk for the demolition company. Someone made a comment that GL would not cover it because it was intentional, albeit I doubt it was intentional to tear down THAT house, making it an accident. It's not a E&O (professional liability) claim as someone else stated as it's property damage and E&O covers financial losses.
 
This is a general liability risk for the demolition company. Someone made a comment that GL would not cover it because it was intentional, albeit I doubt it was intentional to tear down THAT house, making it an accident. It's not a E&O (professional liability) claim as someone else stated as it's property damage and E&O covers financial losses.

You're telling me that demolishing the wrong building didn't lead to financial losses for the injured party?

It doesnt take reading much case law to see where this would be excluded by a GL policy:

"Unintentional harm inflicted on a third party is not an insurable occurrence if the harm resulted from a deliberate act-even if the act was prompted by erroneous information. The damage was not caused by incidental "natural and ordinary consequences" of an act, as the contractor's deliberate destruction of a building-even though based on faulty information-was not an accident. The policy's expected and intended exclusion also bars coverage. Property damage was the expected result of demolishing the building, which was an intentional act."

I'm sticking to my original assessment. E&O claim all the way. Could still be excluded, but it's more likely to be picked up there than the GL policy.
 
Back
Top