Burlington Insurance v. United Coatings Manufacturing Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the plaintiff could not recover in tort for damage caused to walls, windows, and parking lots by the defendant’s allegedly defective wall coating
• finding that, because the alleged negligent misrepresentations about the product’s acrylic percentage “depend[ed] upon the existence of United Coatings’ underlying contract, . . . the claim for negligence misrepresentation [was] contract based”
• reading WDC Venture, its progeny, and Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic for the proposition that, “under Hawaii law, contract and contract-based tort claims are not within the scope of CGL policies”
• finding no coverage under a CGL policy for damage to -exterior walls, windows, and parking lots, caused by a paint product sold by the insured, as all underlying claims arose from the parties’ contractual relationship
• “Because the AOAO’s claim for negligent misrepresentation depends upon the existence of United Coatings’ underlying contract, contract of sale, or warranties, the claim for negligent misrepresentation is contract-based.”
• “Contract-based claims — including claims sounding in tort which are predicated upon, stemming directly from, or derivative of, [the insured’s] contracts, contracts of sales, and warranties — are not covered under the CGL Policy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).