Opinion ID: 710686
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Premises Owned Exclusion

Text: 9 The apartment company challenges the district court's application of the property owned exclusion for two reasons. 10 First, it contends that the exclusion does not apply to the corporate partners because they never owned the property. It argues that the district court erred in not requiring USF & G to provide documentation proving that the partners owned the apartments. The district court did not err. Documentation is not necessary. The partners were co-owners of the partnership's property. 11 Second, the apartment company contends that the completed operations and broad form coverage limits the application of the exclusion to the period of time that the partnership owned the property. It argues that once the apartments were sold, the property owned exclusion no longer applied. But duration of coverage has no bearing on the breadth of coverage. USF & G's insurance policies were for third-party liability; they did not cover damage to the apartments. The completed operations endorsement simply extended that policy to the period after construction. The completed operations endorsement still explicitly excluded the partnership's property from coverage.