GW Remediation would have required either demolition of house or use of structural supports. Insurer argued house demolition and restoration was first party claim subject to owned property exclusion. Trial court agreed but appellate division reversed, holding house was not "damaged" by the contamination and demolition was simply most cost-effective remedial option. The Proformance Insurance Co. v Riggins, Inc. et al., 2010 NJ Super. Unpub. LEXIS 918 (App Div 4/27/10). What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment