Torch Down Roofing Exclusion Unambiguous

Exclusion Defeats Claim for Defense and Indemnity

Barry Zalma
Jul 24, 2023

Duckworth roofing, while repairing a roof for LGO Properties, caused a fire at the Tulane Building while using hot torches to repair the roof. In Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s Of London As Subrogee Of L.G.O. Properties, LLC v. Duxworth Roofing And Sheetmetal, Inc., No. 2022-CA-0821, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit (July 18, 2023) the defendant sought coverage when the defendant’s insurer denied coverage because of an exclusion called the Torch Down Roofing Exclusion.

FACTS

Torch DownPhoto byBarry Zalma

L.G.O. Properties, L.L.C. entered into a contract with Duxworth to perform roofing work at 4033 Tulane Avenue (hereinafter “the Tulane Building”). Duxworth’s roofing work included the use of hot tools and the installation of a process called “torch down roofing” to repair a leak on the roof of the Tulane Building. On December 9, 2016, the Tulane Building was damaged in a fire (hereinafter “the December 2016 fire”).

On October 12, 2017, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, as a subrogee of L.G.O. Properties, L.L.C. (hereinafter collectively “Lloyd’s of London”) filed a suit for damages naming Duxworth as a defendant. Lloyd’s of London’s petition alleges that Duxworth negligently used hot torches to perform roofing work on the Tulane Building thus causing the December 2016 fire. The petition also asserted that Duxworth failed to train its employees and take reasonable precautions to prevent damage to the Tulane Building.

James River, Duckworth’s insurer, filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the Commercial General Liability insurance policy precludes Duxworth from receiving coverage. Specifically, James River maintained that the CGL policy excludes coverage for damages resulting from the use of torches to perform roofing work (hereinafter “the Torch Down Roofing Exclusion”).

Duxworth opposed James River’s motion for summary judgment arguing that the CGL policy and Lloyd’s of London’s petition contains language that does not entitle James River to summary judgment. The trial court granted James Rivers’ motion for summary judgment dismissing James River, without prejudice and before Duckworth could amend James Rivers appealed.

DISCUSSION

Duxworth asserts multiple assignments of error challenging the trial court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment.

The Language Of The Torch Down Roofing Exclusion Is Not Ambiguous

The extent of coverage is determined by the parties’ intent as reflected by the words in the policy. In order to resolve ambiguous language within an insurance policy, the policy must be construed as a whole. If the policy wording at issue is clear and unambiguously expresses the parties’ intent, the insurance contract must be enforced as written.

The Louisiana Court of Appeals found that the Torch Down Roofing Exclusion precludes Duxworth from receiving coverage from James River. A Court must give words and phrases their general meaning. Mr. Duxworth’s deposition revealed that he was a part of the crew that was present and performing torch down roofing repairs to the Tulane Building on the day of the December 2016 fire.

Since Mr. Duxworth testified that his team was instructed to repair a leak to the Tulane Building’s roof which required the use of hot tools and torches, also known as “torch down” roofing, and since Mr. Duxworth concedes that hot tools and torches were used to install a flat torch down roof to the Tulane Building the exclusion applies.

Given the plain, ordinary, and generally prevailing meaning of the words “arise out of,” it was clear to the Court of Appeals that Lloyd’s of London’s claims against Duxworth arose out of and are derived from the property damage caused by the fire that occurred during the time Duxworth was performing ongoing torch down roofing installation.

Duxworth’s contention that the James River’s CGL policy fails to define “Torch Down Roofing” is unpersuasive. Although the Torch Down Roofing Exclusion does not define the term “Torch Down Roofing Operations” it is undisputed that hot tools and torches were used on the date of the December 2016 fire. A plain reading of the CGL policy between James River and Duxworth provides that the damages caused by the use of hot tools to perform roofing repairs, triggers the Torch Down Roofing Exclusion, and precludes coverage.
Duty to Defend

A duty to defend is determined solely from the plaintiff’s pleadings and on the face of the policy. James River’s CGL policy provides: “we will have no duty to defend the insured against any ‘suit’ seeking damages for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to which this insurance does not apply.” Lloyd’s of London’s petition alleges that Duxworth failed to safely use hot torches to perform roofing work on the Tulane Building.

The Torch Down Roofing Exclusion unambiguously excluded the claims against Duckworth. The trial court properly sustained James River’s motion for summary judgment and determining that the Torch Down Roofing Exclusion prevents coverage from the use of torch down roofing operations.

ZALMA OPINION

Everyone who is sued wants to use other people’s money to defend the suit. Duckworth bought a policy with a “Torch Down Roofing Exclusion” that obviously applied after the insured testified he and his staff were using torches to repair the building at the time it caught fire. Using that type of roofing with a policy that excludes it accepted the full risk of loss and will have to use his own funds to pay off the Lloyd’s Underwriters’ subrogation action.

(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.