Opinion ID: 798288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unforeseen and Unexpected Result

Text: Given our statements about the law in Bartile I, one might have expected Bartile’s appellate briefing in this appeal to focus on whether the consequential water damage to other portions of the Project not under Bartile’s control were an unnatural result of its negligence. But that is not the argument Bartile makes. 4 In determining whether the Fourth ACC charges Bartile with an “accident,” the district court applied Wyoming law. See Aplt. App., Vol. II at 533-36. Bartile does not contest this choice of law. See, e.g., Aplt. Opening Br. at 12. Oddly, however, Bartile mounts an argument, based in part on the application of Utah law, concerning the “expected” and “foreseeable” results of an injury. See id. at 12-16. This argument is irrelevant to the issues here, given Bartile’s concession that Wyoming law applies. We would also note that we previously rejected this identical argument in Bartile I itself, 618 F.3d at 1175 n.18. Bartile gives us no reason to revisit an issue already discussed and disposed of in the previous appeal. -14- Instead, citing Wyoming law which focuses on the “event” triggering coverage, and viewing its own negligence rather than the water damage itself as the relevant “event,” Bartile argues that “[t]here is nothing in the [Fourth] ACC, or in any other evidence before the trial court, or in any logical, common sense understanding, to suggest that Bartile foresaw, or expected, or intended, any of the negligent conduct alleged against it in the [Fourth] ACC.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 14 (emphasis added). To bolster this argument, Bartile contends that “it can safely be assumed that construction subcontractors don’t intend to be careless,” id. at 16, and “reputable roofing subcontractors do not expect to accidentally cause damage,” id. at 19. This argument, however, merely represents an attempted “end run” around the definition of “accident” we established in Bartile I, which constitutes the law of this case. In Bartile I we repeatedly insisted that both Utah and Wyoming would agree that “the natural results of an insured’s unworkmanlike or negligent construction” do not “constitute an occurrence (i.e. accident) triggering coverage under a CGL policy.” 618 F.3d at 1174 n.17 (emphasis added). Again, Bartile makes no argument that the consequential water damage at issue here was not a natural result of Bartile’s own unworkmanlike or negligent construction. 5 This 5 In its opening brief, Bartile does occasionally mention the allegations in the Fourth ACC that it “accidentally” caused damage to property other than its own work. See, e.g., Aplt. Opening Br. at 2. But Bartile fails to argue that this result (continued...) -15- being the case, under the very law we repeatedly emphasized in Bartile I, Bartile has not established an “accident” subject to policy coverage. Simply put, Bartile’s argument is devoid of merit because it does not focus on the proper and applicable “natural results” standard we established in Bartile I. Nor does Bartile advance any argument that the “event” of its unworkmanlike or negligent construction produced any unnatural or unexpected results. 6