On certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court was confronted with the question of whether the “your product” and “impaired property” exclusions in CGL policies, are the terms “physical injury” and/or “replacement” ambiguous? UP argued, inter alia, in its brief that the “impaired property” exclusion should be strictly construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage for the policyholder because it is ambiguous as a matter of law.
U.S. Metals v. Liberty Mutual Group
Year
2015
Court
Texas Supreme Court
Case Number
14-0753
Issue
- Contract Interpretation - Ambiguity
- Physical injury requirement for property coverage
State
- Texas