Opinion ID: 31551
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Exclusionary language in the CGL insurance policy

Text: 37 ACS alternatively argues that the district court did not adequately consider the exclusionary language in the insurance policy in order to create coverage. The relevant portions of the policy are as follows: 2. Exclusions This insurance does not apply to: 38 j. Damage to Property 39 Property damage to ... (6) that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because your work was incorrectly performed on it. 40 l. Property damage to your work arising out of it or any part of it and included in the Products-Completed Operations hazard. This exclusion does not apply if the damaged work or the work out of which the damage arises was performed on your behalf by a subcontractor. 41 Your work means 42 (a) Work or operations performed by you on or on your behalf; and 43 (b) materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. 44 ACS argues that the exception to the exclusion in part 2. l. means that the faulty work of a subcontractor is an occurrence covered by the insurance policy. Overall, ACS contends that the exclusionary language means that the work undertaken by the subcontractors and the fact that the leaks were discovered before the project was completed constituted property damage under the policy. As the district court aptly explained, what ACS seeks from its insurer is a performance bond. Consequently, the district court declined to convert the liability policy into a surety agreement. Moreover, the Mississippi Supreme Court recently explained that the exclusionary language in the policy cannot be used to create coverage where none exists. Omnibank, 812 So.2d at 200. The exclusionary language in the contract cannot be used to create coverage where none exists.