Court Opinion

ID: 9514224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:45:48.372724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:14.057626
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 48] I agree with Chief Justice VandeWalle’s dissenting opinion that there was no “occurrence” under the policy for the purposes of the subcontractor exception.
[¶ 49] The majority opinion assumes without deciding that there was a subcontractor at the time of the faulty workmanship “occurrence.”
[¶ 50] For the subcontractor exception to apply, Dakota Ready Mix would had to have been a subcontractor to a contract entered into by K & L Homes at the time Dakota Ready Mix did its work. But it appears that it was not. As the district court noted, “The house that was sold was defective at the time it was sold.” The district court further noted, “There was no obligation to the Leños at the time the faulty work was done.”
[¶ 51] It appears the buyer in the underlying lawsuit purchased the house from K & L Homes after the faulty workmanship was completed. K & L Homes had not contracted to build the home for the buyer. Therefore, when Dakota Ready Mix was hired by K & L Homes to pour the foundation and when it did the work, it appears Dakota Ready Mix was not acting as a subcontractor.
[¶ 52] According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a subcontractor is “[o]ne who is awarded a portion of an existing contract by a contractor, esp. a general contractor.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1560 (9th ed.2009).1 It appears that Dakota Ready Mix was not awarded a portion of an existing contract in this case.
[¶ 53] Presumably, on remand, the issue of whether there was a subcontractor at the time of the faulty workmanship will be resolved.
[¶ 54] DALE V. SANDSTROM

. To the extent that the words in the secondary authority cited in the concurring opinion at ¶ 36 might be read to suggest that the subcontractor exception is not limited to a subcontractor, that reading would be contradicted by the underlying authority.