Opinion ID: 203772
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bead-blasting of the concrete floor

Text: Suffolk's allegation that the concrete floor required bead-blasting because of BloomSouth's negligent and defective work and materials may also be reasonably interpreted as alleging physical injury to property, viz., the concrete substrate. Suffolk's complaint alleged that third-party property (BFDS's concrete floor) had to be bead-blasted because of BloomSouth's faulty work (the defective carpet which was placed upon the concrete floor). The import of this allegation is that BloomSouth's carpet, or its installation, caused physical injury to BFDS's concrete floor. That is essentially the view of Suffolk's allegation that the magistrate judge adopted. The court, in paraphrasing Suffolk's complaint, stated, Suffolk seeks remuneration for ... bead-blasting the concrete []floor to eradicate VOC contamination caused by the [carpet] or its installation. [4] Essex argues that Suffolk's bead-blasting allegation cannot be reasonably construed as indicating physical injury to property. It asserts that The allegation itself conclusively establishes that the `bead-blasting' was part of the replacement process for the defective carpet. We reject Essex's argument. The claim that Suffolk's allegation conclusively establishes that bead-blasting was part of a replacement processas opposed to a remedial measureis overstated. As we have noted, the allegation is reasonably susceptible to a different interpretation: the one adopted by the magistrate judge. Moreover, were we to read the complaint as Essex suggests, we would be endorsing a more exacting pleading standard than currently exists for establishing the duty to defend. See Lee v. Aetna Cas. & Sure. Co., 178 F.2d 750, 753 (2d Cir. 1949) (L.Hand, J.) (When ... the complaint comprehends an injury which may be within the policy, we hold that the promise to defend includes it) (cited with approval in Sterilite ); see also Sterilite Corp., 458 N.E.2d at 341 (There is no requirement that the facts alleged in the complaint specifically and unequivocally make out a claim within the coverage.) (citation omitted).