Reyes Ramos, Lydia Esther v. Administracion Hogares De Agricultores

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that “a claim for ‘property damage’ requires physical injury to some tangible property other than the contractor’s own defective work”
• explaining that the “your work” exclusion, absent a subcontractor’s exception, would eliminate a contractor’s coverage for damage to a completed project where a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship on one part of the project caused damage to another part of the project
• because only faulty subcontractor work was at 25 issue, “[t]he application of the ‘your work’ exclusion and its subcontractor exception thus 26 has no impact on the outcome of this case”
• “Although the loss of roof tiles may be said to have ‘damaged’ the structural integrity of the roof, thereby rendering it defective, ‘there is no damage beyond the faulty workmanship’ because the defective roof has not damaged some ‘otherwise nondefective’ component of the project.”
• “[T]here is a difference between a claim for the costs of repairing or removing defective work, which is not a claim for ‘property damage,’ and a claim for the costs of repairing damage caused by the defective work, which is a claim for ‘property damage.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).