The Wasilla Junction Box: Occurrence, Your Work, and a Misleading Certificate
Northline Builders is the general contractor for a retail build-out in Wasilla. Susitna Electric, a subcontractor, installs the service panel and branch wiring. Susitna's CGL certificate lists Northline as an additional insured and states "AI status: ongoing and completed operations." Fourteen months after the store opens, a fire starts in a junction box Susitna installed and causes $500,000 in damage to the tenant's inventory and the owner's interior finishes. The wiring in the box is destroyed. The owner and tenant sue both Northline and Susitna, alleging negligent installation and negligent supervision of the sub. Susitna's CGL carries $1M each occurrence and a $2M products-completed operations aggregate that is untouched. Northline's CGL carries $1M each occurrence. The additional insured endorsement behind the certificate covers ongoing operations only and excludes completed operations.
1. Is there an "occurrence"? Separate the damage to the wiring from the damage to the tenant's inventory and the owner's finishes.
Read the worked answer
A CGL "occurrence" is an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions. Two separate questions hide inside that word:
1. The wiring itself. The cost to tear out and replace the defective junction box and branch wiring is the subcontractor's own work - an expected consequence of poor workmanship, not an accident. Most courts hold there is no "occurrence" for damage to the work/product itself, and the policy's own exclusions would remove it anyway.
2. Damage to other property. Fire damage to the tenant's inventory and the owner's interior finishes is property damage to property other than the work. The majority rule treats damage to other property caused by defective workmanship as an accident - fortuitous from the standpoint of the damaged owner and not the natural, expected result of the installation. A minority of jurisdictions (and any insurer defending this file) will argue that damage flowing from the insured's own faulty work can never be an accident; expect that argument and be ready to distinguish the "other property" cases.
Practical answer: likely an occurrence for the inventory and finishes; almost certainly not for the wiring. The claim must be split before the exclusions are even reached.
2. Trace which policies respond and to what. Does Susitna's CGL defend Northline under the additional insured tender?
Read the worked answer
Susitna's own CGL - responds to Susitna:
- The "your work" exclusion bars the cost of repairing or replacing the wiring Susitna installed; the subcontractor exception does not help Susitna because this is its own work.
- But the exclusion does not reach damage to other property arising out of that work. The inventory and finish damage falls into the products-completed operations hazard (Susitna had relinquished possession), so the $2M completed operations aggregate is the relevant bucket.
Northline's own CGL - responds to Northline:
- The "your work" exclusion would bar damage to the building Northline built - but Northline's exclusion carries a subcontractor exception, which restores coverage for property damage arising out of work performed on Northline's behalf by a subcontractor. That is exactly this fact pattern, and it is why the general contractor's policy answers the negligent-supervision and vicarious-liability allegations.
Does Susitna's AI endorsement defend Northline? Almost certainly not for this loss. The endorsement behind the certificate covers ongoing operations only. The fire happened fourteen months after completion, so the claim falls in the completed operations gap the endorsement excludes. The certificate's language creates no coverage - see the next task.
Bottom line: each insured's own carrier is the primary source; Susitna's insurer owes no defense to Northline but owes Susitna a defense.
3. The certificate says completed operations are included. What is the certificate worth in a coverage dispute, and what should Northline's insurer do with the tender?
Read the worked answer
The certificate is worth very little. It is evidence that insurance existed on the date issued, not the contract of insurance. It confers no coverage, does not amend the policy, and does not estop an insurer from relying on its actual endorsements. The controlling documents are the policy forms and the additional insured endorsement, followed by the subcontract's insurance requirements. Northline's remedy for the mismatch is contractual and extra-contractual: a claim against Susitna for breach of the subcontract's insurance specification, and a potential E&O claim against the agent who issued a certificate that misdescribed the endorsement.
What Northline's insurer should do:
- Accept the defense of Northline under its own policy, subject to a reservation of rights. The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and is measured by the allegations, not the ultimate facts; negligent supervision of a subcontractor potentially falls within coverage.
- Tender to Susitna's carrier anyway to preserve contribution and subrogation rights, and follow up in writing so the refusal is documented.
- Watch the conflict: if the insurer reserves on the ground that some allegations are uncovered, the insured may be entitled to independent counsel at the insurer's expense.
- Do not let the certificate drive the analysis. Anchoring a reservation letter to a certificate instead of the endorsement is how insurers end up with a bad-faith exposure they could have avoided.