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.
Court Texas Supreme Court
Case Number 14-0753
- Contract Interpretation - Ambiguity
- Physical injury requirement for property coverage