‘Other Property’ Damage Claim Triggers Defense Obligation For Insured Contractor

October 6, 2022 / Writing and Speaking

By Don R. Sampen, published, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, October 4, 2022

The 1st District Appellate Court, reversing a trial court decision, recently held that allegations of defective work by a contractor gave rise to an insurer’s duty to defend the contractor, when the allegations stated that the defective work caused damage to “other property” but without identifying what “other property.”

The case is Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2022 IL App (1st) 220023 (Sept. 9). The insurer, Acuity, was represented by Lindsay, Pickett & Postel LLC of Chicago. Gould & Ratner LLP of Chicago represented the insured contractor, M/I Homes of Chicago.

M/I Homes was the successor developer and seller of a multiple-building residential townhome development in Hanover, Illinois. In 2018, the Church Street Station Townhome Owners Association for the development brought suit against M/I Homes alleging defects in construction.

The association’s amended complaint sought damages for breach of contract and breach of implied warranty of habitability. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the construction defects caused damage “to the Townhomes … to other building materials … to other portions of the Townhomes … to other property.” It further alleged that the damage was accidental in that M/I Homes did not intend to cause the defects or resulting property damage.

M/I Homes tendered its defense to Acuity as an additional insured under a commercial general liability policy Acuity issued to a subcontractor on the development, H&R Exteriors. The policy used standard language imposing a duty upon Acuity to defend against property damage caused by an “occurrence.”

In response to the tender, Acuity filed this declaratory action seeking a determination that it did not have a duty to defend M/I Homes. It took the position that the townhomes were M/I Homes’ own work product, and that damage to its own work product did not constitute an “occurrence.”

Upon cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court agreed with Acuity, and M/I Homes took this appeal.


In an opinion by Justice Mary L. Mikva, the 1st District reversed. She observed that the parties were in agreement that, under Illinois case law, an “occurrence” does not occur with respect to an insured’s construction defects causing damage only to its own work product.

She noted this understanding is not tied directly to the language of the insurance policy, but came about by judicial construction of CGL policies. Such damages are construed as economic losses that do not constitute property damage.

Under this interpretation, for coverage to apply to M/I Homes, which served as general contractor for the entire townhome development, the covered property damage must be damage to property beyond the construction project itself. Hence, Acuity argued that the references to “other property” in the underlying complaint failed to identify the relevant property and did not give rise to coverage.

Where a general contractor, such as M/I Homes, seeks coverage under a subcontractor’s policy as an additional insured, Mikva noted at least one case that could have an impact on the foregoing judicial interpretation. Thus, in Westfield Insurance Co. v. National Decorating Service, Inc., 147 F. Supp. 3d 708 (N.D. Ill. 2015), aff’d, 863 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2017), the court held that allegations of damage beyond the scope of the subcontractor-named insured’s work — i.e., not the general contractor’s work — could give rise to an occurrence from the subcontractor’s perspective, thereby entitling the general contractor to coverage.

She wrote, however, that no need to apply such an approach existed here. She observed that to the extent the reference in the underlying complaint to “other property” was a reference to townhome owners’ individual property, the association may have standing to pursue such claims in a representative capacity under the Common Interest Community Association Act, 765 ILCS 160/1-30(j).

But even if not, said Mikva, the vague or ambiguous nature of the “damage to other property” allegation was not necessarily limited to the property of unit owners, and any doubts should be resolved in favor of finding a duty to defend. The association clearly had standing to act in a representative capacity regarding common areas, and the “other property” could be a reference to the association’s own property in those areas.

The 1st District therefore found that the allegations, though vague, were sufficient to potentially fall within the policy’s coverage requirement of property damage caused by an “occurrence,” and it reversed in favor of M/I Homes.

Key Point

Vague allegations in an underlying complaint of damage caused by a contractor to “other property” may be sufficient to give rise to an insurer’s duty to defend the contractor, even though damage to the contractor’s own work would not give rise to such a duty.

  • Chicago

    Illinois 60603

    10 South LaSalle Street

    Chicago, Illinois 60603

    T: 312.855.1010 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: Dennis D. Fitzpatrick

  • New York

    New York 10005

    28 Liberty Street 39th Floor

    New York, New York 10005

    T: 212.805.3900 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 212.805.3939 Office Managing Partner: Carl M. Perri

  • Mission Viejo

    California 92691

    27285 Las Ramblas

    Suite 200

    Mission Viejo, California 92691

    T: 949.260.3100 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 949.260.3190 Office Managing Partner: Ian R. Feldman

  • Florham Park

    New Jersey 07932

    100 Campus Drive

    Florham Park, New Jersey 07932

    T: 973.410.4130 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 973.410.4169 Office Managing Partner: Carl M. Perri

  • Michigan City

    Indiana 46360

    200 Commerce Square

    Michigan City, Indiana 46360

    T: 219.262.6106 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partners: Paige M. Neel, Kimbley A. Kearney

  • Appleton

    Wisconsin 54914

    4650 W. Spencer Street

    Appleton, Wisconsin 54914

    T: 920.560.4658 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 920.968.4650 Office Managing Partner:

  • Stamford

    Connecticut 06902

    68 Southfield Avenue

    2 Stamford Landing Suite 100

    Stamford, Connecticut 06902

    T: 203.921.0303 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 212.805.3939 Office Managing Partner: Matthew J. Van Dusen

  • Tampa

    Florida 33609

    4830 West Kennedy Boulevard, One Urban Center

    Suite 600

    Tampa, Florida 33609

    T: 813.509.2578 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: Dennis D. Fitzpatrick

  • San Francisco

    California 94111

    100 Pine Street

    Suite 1250

    San Francisco, California 94111

    T: 415.287.2744 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 949.260.3190 Office Managing Partner: Ian R. Feldman

  • Houston

    Texas 77019

    2929 Allen Parkway

    American General Center, Suite 200

    Houston, Texas 77019

    T: 346.229.4612 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: Ramy P. Elmasri

  • Dallas

    Texas 75201

    325 N. Saint Paul Street

    Suite 3100

    Dallas, Texas 75201

    T: 469.942.8635 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: Ramy P. Elmasri

  • Boca Raton

    Florida 33434

    7777 Glades Road

    Suite 405

    Boca Raton, Florida 33434

    T: 561.765.5305 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: Dennis D. Fitzpatrick