Crossmann Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that faulty workmanship on exteriors of condominium projects that resulted in water damage to nondefective interiors was an “occurrence,” notwithstanding that insureds were the developers of the projects
• finding that damage caused by allegedly negligent construction constituted “property damage” and occurred at the time of the negligence
• clarifying that “negligent or defective construction resulting in damage to otherwise non-defective components may constitute ‘property damage,’ but the defective construction would not”
• stating that the question before the court was whether the party’s claims involved an “occurrence”; the parties stipulated the claims involved property damage and the parties would not argue any policy exclusions
• adopting \time-on-risk\ approach to \forward[ ] important policy goals\ and preserve incentive for business to purchase sufficient insurance, promoting stability in insurance market
• rejecting the \joint and several\ allocation approach because, inter alia, that approach ignores \critical language\ limiting the insurer's indemnity obligation to those losses occurring during the policy period

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).