Thermex Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Sand Companies v. Gorham Housing Partners

    No. A10-113 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2010)

    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."

  2. Big-D Constr. Midwest, LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

    Civil No. 2:16-cv-00952-BSJ (D. Utah Aug. 13, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    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.

  3. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Viracon, Inc.

    Civ. No. 16-482 (PAM/SER) (D. Minn. Jun. 18, 2018)

    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.

  4. Big-D Constr. Midwest, LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

    Civil No. 2:16-cv-00952-BSJ (D. Utah May. 18, 2018)

    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). --------

  5. Sphere Drake Ins. Co. v. Tremco, Inc.

    513 N.W.2d 473 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 20 times
    Holding when insured's faulty workmanship results in damage to property of third party such third-party property damage is not excluded from coverage by business risk doctrine

    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.

  6. Diamond State Ins. Co. v. Chester-Jensen Co.

    243 Ill. App. 3d 471 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 76 times
    In Diamond State Ins. Co. v. Chester-Jensen, Inc., 243 Ill. App.3d 471 (1st Dist. 1993), the court considered whether the plaintiff insurance companies had a duty to defend their insured, the defendant manufacturer of refrigeration and other heat exchange equipment, in an action wherein the State of Illinois sought damages "resulting from the failure of the air conditioning system installed in the State of Illinois Center to adequately cool the building" during the summer.

    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.