Id. at 755-57 (citing to exclusion (n), which excludes " property damage to the named insured's products" (emphasis added)). Cincinnati's reliance on Thermex v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos., 393 N.W.2d 15 (Minn. App. 1986) is misplaced. In Thermex, we stated that "replacement costs related to defective work and materials, does not fit within the policy definition of property damage."
Zurich American Insurance Company v. Big-D Construction Midwest LLC, et al., case no. 27-cv-16-14076, Third Judicial District, State of Minnesota. ("replacement costs related to defective work and materials, does not fit within the policy definition of property damage.")(quoting Themex Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 393 N.W.2d 15 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). Because Utah and Minnesota law produce the same outcome, a choice of law analysis is unnecessary and the law of the forum state is applied.
National Union contends that Minnesota courts have conclusively determined that "replacement costs related to defective work and materials . . . does not fit within the policy definition of property damage." Thermex Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos., 393 N.W.2d 15, 17 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). But the Thermex decision is not as straightforward or "seminal" as National Union contends.
Zurich American Insurance Company v. Big-D Construction Midwest LLC, et al., case no. 27-cv-16-14076, Third Judicial District, State of Minnesota. ("replacement costs related to defective work and materials, does not fit within the policy definition of property damage.")(quoting Themex Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 393 N.W.2d 15 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). --------
The damage to the ramp itself constitutes "property damage" within the meaning of FFI's policy. See Terrace Enter., 260 N.W.2d at 452-53; Thermex Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos., 393 N.W.2d 15, 17 (Minn.App. 1986); Concrete Units, 363 N.W.2d at 756-57. The defective waterblasting also allegedly damaged the Tremco membrane.
The complaint alleges only economic losses due to the installation of an inadequate HVAC system." 218 Ill. App.3d at 963-64; Dreis Krump Manufacturing Co. v. Phoenix Insurance Co. (7th Cir. 1977), 548 F.2d 681, 688 (holding that no duty to defend was present because the underlying complaint brought against insured press brake manufacturer did not allege damage to tangible property even though such complaint alleged that plaintiff was forced to "expend sums of money in the form of labor and equipment in an attempt to rectify these defects"); see also Thermex Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Cos. (Minn. App. 1986), 393 N.W.2d 15 (holding that no duty to defend heating contractor existed when underlying complaint sought replacement costs for defective work and materials and rental costs for substitute quarters because there were no allegations of physical injury to the building and no "occurrence" within the meaning of the policy). Chester-Jensen's reliance on Pittway Corp. v. American Motorists Insurance Co. (1977), 56 Ill. App.3d 338, 370 N.E.2d 1271, W.E. O'Neil Construction Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. (N.D. Ill. 1989), 721 F. Supp. 984, Elco Industries, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (1980), 90 Ill. App.3d 1106, 414 N.E.2d 41, and MarathonPlastics, Inc. v. International Insurance Co. (1987), 161 Ill. App.3d 452, 514 N.E.2d 479, is misplaced.