A recent decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals in the case of “Stresscon Corporation v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America” provides an insight into insurance coverage under a contractor’s comprehensive general liability insurance policy. While the decision may be reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court at a later date, it does appear to express the law as it now stands in Colorado.

在这种情况下，压力孔制造的混凝土结构成员是在小组倒下时安装在项目上的混凝土结构成员，一名工人被杀，另一名工人受伤。Travelers是Ressurecon的全面一般责任保险公司，拒绝捍卫该项目总承包商的赔偿或支付赔偿赔偿，原因是由于事故造成的施工延迟而遭受的损害。

Stresscon was successful in its claims that Travelers unreasonably denied or delayed payment under its policy to the general contractor.

结果，RessureCon有权获得双重损害赔偿，并根据科罗拉多州的法规收回其律师费，该法规对保险公司罚款不合理的拒绝或付款延误。

However, Stresscon also claimed that it was entitled to recover, under its Travelers insurance policy, for the cost of the replacement of its concrete structural work that was damaged in the accident and related repairs. Travelers denied that claim.

法院同意旅行者的裁决，即其保险单没有涵盖压力符号的工作或代表其在最全面的责任保险单中常见的保单排除行为所做的工作。这些排除通常称为“您的工作”排除。

因此，根据该法院的裁决，Ressercon必须承担替换和维修事故中损坏的工作的费用。但是，如果混凝土面板在秋季损坏了该项目的其他部分，则旅行者保险单将涵盖对该项目其他组件的损害。

This is not an unusual result under insurance policies and insurance law. While the cost of replacement of faulty work itself is not covered, the cost of repair or replacement of whatever may have been damaged as a result of the incident is. For example, if a pipe breaks and causes a flood, insurance will cover the flood damages but not the repair or replacement of the pipe.

Insurance coverage is a tricky area of the law that should be considered very carefully by construction industry members when buying insurance policies and when incidents occur that may be covered by insurance. It has been my practice for many years that when a client has experienced an incident that may be covered by insurance, my philosophy is that it is covered unless the insurance company proves otherwise.

Albert B. Wolf is a principal in the Denver law firm of Wolf Slatkin & Madison PC.