Category Legal Affairs

Bad subcontractor work not an ‘accident’ – Ohio USA

10 December 2018 Patrick Bracher, Norton Rose Fulbright
Patrick Bracher, Norton Rose Fulbright

Patrick Bracher, Norton Rose Fulbright

Ohio’s high court has held that damage from a subcontractor’s faulty work is not fortuitous in the context of a commercial general liability policy which covered an ‘occurrence’ meaning an ‘accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions’ causing property damage including physical injury to or destruction of tangible property.

The constructors built a new luxury hotel and conference centre with the help of subcontractors. After the work was completed the hotel suffered extensive water damage from hidden leaks caused by defective work and other serious structural defects were uncovered. The repair costs were estimated at $6 million for a $8 million project.

The water damage was ‘property damage’ but there was no ‘occurrence’ as defined. The faulty work was not fortuitous as was required by the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used in the policy.

The court refused to follow what was alleged to be a trend in the law to cover bad workmanship under commercial general liability policies. The courts in a number of states have found that general liability policies cover damage tied to subcontractors’ defective work. The Ohio court refused to follow any such trend. CGL policies, it said, are not intended to protect owners from ordinary business risks that are normal, frequent or predictable consequences of doing business that the insured can manage.

South African courts will require a fortuitous occurrence according to principles of insurance and are unlikely to follow the trend in some of the US states to cover defective subcontractor work.

The case is Ohio Northern University v Charles Construction Services Inc.


First published by: Financial Institutions Legal Snapshot

Quick Polls


Do you think that the Singapore Central Provident Fund Model can be implemented in South Africa?


Yes, absolutely, what are we waiting for?
No, we have completely different challenges that we need to address
Why can we design our own model based on our own unique challenges
Forced preservation, in any form, will never work in South Africa
A E fanews magazine
FAnews June 2019 Get the latest issue of FAnews

This month's headlines

New realities of customer engagement
Success in the new CPD cycle
Shedding light on the reinstatement clause
Resisting the winds of change
Claim statistics tell the story
Growth assets for living annuity investors
Subscribe now