Opinion ID: 2088479
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Business Risk Exclusions

Text: The comprehensive general liability policies issued by plaintiffs all contain what have commonly been referred to as business risk exclusions. These exclusions are all premised on the theory that liability policies are not intended to provide protection against the insured's own faulty workmanship or product, which are normal risks associated with the conduct of the insured's business. Rather, the policies are meant to afford coverage for damage to other property caused by the insured's work or product. Wilkin and plaintiff agreed to exclude these business risks from coverage. Plaintiffs' policies exclude coverage for: property damage to the insured's products arising out of such products or any part of such products; and property damage to work performed by or on behalf of the insured arising out of the work or any portion thereof, or out of materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection therewith. Plaintiffs argue that these exclusions apply in the instant action, pointing to the fact that the underlying complaints seek recovery for the costs of the removal, repair and/or replacement of the asbestos-containing product. However, plaintiffs fail to recognize that the underlying complaints seek these damages as a result of the contamination visited upon the buildings and the contents therein by the product that Wilkin installed. As such, the underlying complaints seek recovery for damage to property other than the product installed by Wilkin or Wilkin's workmanship. Therefore, these exclusionary clauses are inapplicable to the case at bar.