Travelers Indem. Co. v. Mckenzie & Sons, Inc. et al.

Year: 2018
Court: Eleventh Circuit
Case Number: No. 18-13172-D

In its brief, UP argues that the District Court erred in determining Travelers did not owe a duty to defend based on Exclusion (j)(5). Examination of the plain language and intent of the exclusion makes clear that the exclusions have a limited application that does not extend to property damage within the prducts-completed operations hazard, but only to property damage that occurs while operations are in progress.

Molly Chafe Brockmeyer

 

The information presented in this publication is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for legal advice. If you have a specific legal issue or problem, United Policyholders recommends that you consult with an attorney. Guidance on hiring professional help can be found in the “Find Help” section of www.uphelp.org. United Policyholders does not sell insurance or certify, endorse or warrant any of the insurance products, vendors, or professionals identified on our website.

Source: https://uphelp.org/amicus-briefs/travelers-indem-co-v-mckenzie-sons-inc-et-al/
Date: April 24, 2024