The Court reversed the summary judgment for the insurer, finding that the Montrose Clause in the policy did not preclude the duty to defend even though the underlying petition included allegations that the property damage had occurred prior to the inception date of the policy because the underlying petition asserted claims against multiple subcontractors and, therefore, any damage from the insured's work could still have started after the policy's inception even if damage from another sub's work had begun prior to the start of the policy period.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login