Opinion ID: 63283
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Your Work

Text: The Policy also excludes coverage for `Property damage' to: [t]hat particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because `your work' was incorrectly performed on it. Hartford contends that this exclusion applies to the entire Aircraft, not just the IFE/CMS system or electrical system in question. [8] [I]f a contract of insurance is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, we must resolve the uncertainty by adopting the construction that most favors the insured. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Hudson Energy Co., 811 S.W.2d 552, 555 (Tex.1991). In particular, exceptions or limitations on liability are strictly construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured. Id. Hartford's reading of the exclusion reads out the words that particular part. See Hartford Cas. Co. v. Cruse, 938 F.2d 601 (5th Cir.1991) (construing a related provision to exclude damages to the defective foundation work performed by the insured but not damages to the entire house caused by that defective work). If work on any part of a property would leave an insured exposed for damages to the entire property, the exclusion should state: Property damage to property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because your work was incorrectly performed on any part of it. Even if Hartford's construction were reasonable, so is the construction that would exclude coverage for the damage to the IFE/CMS itself (or, perhaps, the electrical system) but not the rest of the Aircraft and the ensuing loss of use damages. See Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 811 S.W.2d at 555. Here, the Statement of Claim sought extensive damages beyond that of repairing the IFE/CMS or the electrical system. [9]