Court Opinion

ID: 9641509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:33:30.814835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:35.251362
License: Public Domain

BROCK, J., dissenting, with whom BOIS, J., joins.
I would affirm the trial court’s ruling that this case is controlled by Aetna Insurance Co. v. State Motors, Inc., 109 N.H. 120, 244 A.2d 64 (1968).
I agree that the policy issued by Commercial Union to the defendant building contractor provides some coverage for bodily injury and property damage arising out of a breach of warranty or faulty workmanship. I would derive such coverage as exists from the completed operations endorsement, which expressly covers “bodily injury and property damage arising out of . . . reliance upon a representation or warranty. ...” Because of the exempting language in exclusion (a), that exclusion has no effect on liability arising from breach of warranty and need not concern us.
The only issue before us is whether the coverage granted in the completed operations endorsement is limited by other exclusions in the policy, in particular exclusion (o). The various exclusions, which apply to the completed operations endorsement as well as to the basic policy, specify that the insurer did not promise to reimburse the contractor for each and every item of liability which it may incur. The policy does not, for example, cover damage to property over which the insured is exercising control; if the roof had collapsed before the Gollans took possession of their house, Lloyd G. Reynolds, Inc. could not recover from Commercial Union the cost of rebuilding. In a similar manner exclusion (o) specifically excludes from coverage “property damage to work performed by or on behalf of the named insured arising out of the work or any portion thereof,...” The trial court found, I believe correctly, that this language has the same effect as that brought before this court in the Aetna case, which excluded reimbursing the insured garage for the costs of *750repairing or replacing its own damaged automobiles. Since the policy language is reasonably clear I am not inclined to disregard it at the behest of an insured who wishes in retrospect that he had purchased broader coverage. Storms v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 118 N.H. 427, 388 A.2d 578 (1978). I would here affirm the trial court’s conclusion that Lloyd G. Reynolds, Inc., cannot recover under the policy any costs it may incur for repair or replacement of the Gollans’ roof.
This interpretation would not render the completed operations endorsement meaningless. See Rivier College v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 104 N.H. 398, 187 A.2d 799 (1963). Commercial Union does not dispute that the policy affords coverage for damage to the Gollans’ personal property which was in the house at the time of the collapse, as well as for any bodily injury which might have occurred. The exclusion does not therefore “remove from coverage the very hazard for which a specific charge was made.” Brown v. City of Laconia, 118 N.H. 376, 386 A.2d 1276, 1277 (1978). The fact that in this particular case the elements of damage allowable under the policy do not approach the policy limits should not influence us to rewrite the policy terms.