BROADCASTS.com

b'

Exclusion Defeats Claim for Defense and Indemnity\\n\\nDuckworth roofing, while repairing a roof for LGO Properties caused a \\nfire at the Tulane Building while using hot torches to repair the roof. \\nIn Certain Underwriters At Lloyd\'s Of London As Subrogee Of L.G.O. \\nProperties, LLC \\xa0v. \\xa0Duxworth Roofing And Sheetmetal, Inc., No. \\n2022-CA-0821, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit (July 18, \\n2023) the defendant sought coverage when the\\xa0 defendant\'s insurer denied\\n coverage because of an exclusion called the Torch Down Roofing \\nExclusion.\\n\\nFACTS\\n\\nL.G.O. Properties, L.L.C. entered into a contract with Duxworth to \\nperform roofing work at 4033 Tulane Avenue (hereinafter "the Tulane \\nBuilding"). Duxworth\'s roofing work included the use of hot tools and \\nthe installation of a process called "torch down roofing" to repair a \\nleak on the roof of the Tulane Building. On December 9, 2016, the Tulane\\n Building was damaged in a fire (hereinafter "the December 2016 fire").\\n\\nJames River, Duckworth\'s insurer, filed a motion for summary judgment \\narguing that the Commercial General Liability insurance policy precludes\\n Duxworth from receiving coverage.\\n\\nDISCUSSION\\n\\nDuxworth asserts multiple assignments of error challenging the trial \\ncourt\'s ruling on the motion for summary judgment.\\n\\nThe Language Of The Torch Down Roofing Exclusion Is Not Ambiguous\\n\\nThe Louisiana Court of Appeals found that the Torch Down Roofing \\nExclusion precludes Duxworth from receiving coverage from James River. A\\n Court must give words and phrases their general meaning. Mr. Duxworth\'s\\n deposition revealed that he was a part of the crew that was present and\\n performing torch down roofing repairs to the Tulane Building on the day\\n of the December 2016 fire.\\n\\nSince Mr. Duxworth testified that his team was instructed to repair a \\nleak to the Tulane Building\'s roof which required the use of hot tools \\nand torches, also known as "torch down" roofing, and since Mr. Duxworth \\nconcedes that hot tools and torches were used to install a flat torch \\ndown roof to the Tulane Building the exclusion applies.\\n\\nGiven the plain, ordinary, and generally prevailing meaning of the words\\n "arise out of," it was clear to the Court of Appeals that Lloyd\'s of \\nLondon\'s claims against Duxworth arose out of and are derived from the \\nproperty damage caused by the fire that occurred during the time \\nDuxworth was performing ongoing torch down roofing installation.\\n\\nDuty to Defend\\n\\nA duty to defend is determined solely from the plaintiff\'s pleadings and\\n on the face of the policy. James River\'s CGL policy provides: "we will \\nhave no duty to defend the insured against any \'suit\' seeking damages \\nfor \'bodily injury\' or \'property damage\' to which this insurance does \\nnot apply." Lloyd\'s of London\'s petition alleges that Duxworth failed to\\n safely use hot torches to perform roofing work on the Tulane Building.\\n\\nThe Torch Down Roofing Exclusion unambiguously excluded the claims \\nagainst Duckworth. The trial court properly sustained James River\'s \\nmotion for summary judgment and determining that the Torch Down Roofing \\nExclusion prevents coverage from the use of torch down roofing \\noperations.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nEveryone who is sued wants to use other people\'s money to defend the \\nsuit. Duckworth bought a policy with a "Torch Down Roofing Exclusion" \\nthat obviously applied after the insured testified he and his staff were\\n using torches to repair the building at the time it caught fire. Using \\nthat type of roofing with a policy that excludes it accepted the full \\nrisk of loss and will have to use his own funds to pay off the Lloyd\'s \\nUnderwriters\' subrogation action.\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.\\n