Panel Finds Ambiguity In Excess Insurance Policy’s Faulty Work Exclusion
(June 6, 2016, 10:14 AM EDT) -- PHOENIX — An excess insurance policy’s faulty workmanship exclusion is ambiguous as to whether an insured’s work was “put to its intended use,” an Arizona appeals panel ruled June 2, vacating a trial judge’s grant of summary judgment to the insurer regarding coverage for construction defect claims (Cantex, Inc. v. Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Co., No. 1 CA-CV 15-0280, Ariz. App., Div. 1; 2016 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 716).