Specialty Surfaces Int’l, Inc. v. Cont’l Cas. Co.
Specialty Surfaces...(U.S. 3d Cir., Construction, Contracts, Insurance Law) In plaintiffs’ action against its insurer, seeking declaratory relief that the insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiffs in an underlying action, district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer is affirmed where: 1) Pennsylvania has a far greater interest in having the coverage issue determined in accordance with its law than California; 2) the insurer did not have a duty to defend after receiving notice of the original complaint; 3) the insurer was not required to defend plaintiff because the allegations in the amended complaint do not support a determination that any damage was caused by an “occurrence,” as any damages to plaintiff’s own work product based on plaintiff’s alleged negligence claims are claims of damage based on faulty workmanship.
