Opinion ID: 161517
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: a sidetrack agreement;

Text: 20 3. an easement or license agreement in connection with vehicle or pedestrian private railroad crossings at grade; 21 4. any other easement agreement, except in connection with construction or demolition operations on or within 50 feet of a railroad; 22 5. an indemnification of a municipality as required by ordinance, except in connection with work for a municipality; 23 6. an elevator maintenance agreement; 24 7. that part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business under which you assume the tort liability of another to pay damages because of bodily injury or property damage to a third person or organization, if the contract or agreement is made prior to the bodily injury or property damage. Tort liability means a liability that would be imposed by law in the absence of any contract or agreement[.] 25 Provision seven is the only provision arguably applicable to the contract between Foster Wheeler and VBF. The contract between Foster Wheeler and VBF contains a clause in which VBF assumes Foster Wheeler's tort liability for claims arising from the electrical equipment. Foster Wheeler's suit against VBF, however, did not seek indemnification for Foster Wheeler's tort liability to a third party; Foster Wheeler's suit sought recovery for expenses it incurred by having to replace the damaged electrical equipment. Thus, Foster Wheeler's contractual claim was not brought pursuant to an insured contract under the CGL policy because it was not brought pursuant to that part of the Foster Wheeler-VBF contract under which VBF assumes the tort liability of Foster Wheeler. 26 VBF makes one other argument for coverage under the CGL policy. VBF argues that coverage exists under what it describes as an endorsement for completed products operations hazard. Defendants, however, contend that products--completed operations hazard is not a coverage provision but rather is an exclusion to the CGL policy that can be removed through additional premiums, which they concede VBF paid. A review of the record indicates that Defendants are correct. Products--Completed Operations Hazard is defined in the policy to include 27 all bodily injury and property damage occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of your product or your work except: 28
29
30 Products--completed operations hazard is not, however, mentioned in the CGL policy provisions extending coverage. It is clear that Defendants are correct to argue that products--completed operations hazard was an exclusion to coverage under the CGL policy that was removed by increased premium payments by VBF. 31 That products--completed operations hazard was an exclusion removed by increased premiums, as opposed to a coverage provision, has great import in this case. The removal of the products--completed operations hazard exclusion did not create additional coverage beyond that provided for in the coverage provisions. As discussed above, the Foster Wheeler lawsuit is not covered under the coverage provisions of the CGL policy because the Foster Wheeler suit was not based on tort or an insured contract. Thus, the removal of the products--completed operations hazard exclusion is irrelevant because the CGL policy coverage provisions do not apply to the Foster Wheeler suit.