Gehan Homes, Ltd. v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an insured builder’s negligence resulting in unexpected damage can constitute an “occurrence”
• holding that insurers failed to establish as a matter of law that there was no allegation of a potential occurrence within the policy coverage period when the insureds claimed they suffered past property damages without identifying when in the past it occurred
• stating that finding no \occurrence\ when the damage is to the insured's own workÔÇöthe subject of the contractÔÇöwould read language into the policy \that simply is not there\ and render surplusage the exclusions that apply to \property damage\
• stating that finding no “occurrence” when the damage is to the insured’s own work — the subject of the contract — would read language into the policy “that simply is not there” and render surplusage the exclusions that apply to “property damage”
• noting that if the pleadings do not state facts sufficient to bring the case clearly within or without coverage, the general rule is that the insurer is obligated to defend if potentially there is a case under the pleadings and within policy coverage
• stating that finding no A occurrence @ when the damage is to the insured = s own work C the subject of the contract C would read language into the policy A that simply is not there @ and render surplusage the exclusions that apply to A property damage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).