'Defective Workmanship'/'Wear and Tear' Clauses Do Not Exclude Coverage of Mold-Contaminated Air, Plaintiffs Argue
June 7, 2002
DOCUMENTS
- Adams Affidavit, C.V. and Indoor Air Management Report
- Decision in <i>Pence v. Lightning Rod,</i> IP01–1895–C–B/S (S.D. Ind.)
- Docket as of June 6
- M.S. Crandall/P&K Report of April 4, 2001
- Pences’ Second Amended (SA) Complaint Filed Oct. 29, 2001
- Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Lightning Rod
- Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Lightning Rod
- SA Complaint Ex. A Construction Contract
- SA Complaint Ex. B Advance’s Spec Sheet
- SA Complaint Ex. C Advance’sAssignment of Loan and Carpenter Subcontract
INDIANAPOLIS - Homeowners involved in litigation with the construction company and contractors that built their Danville, Ind., home in 1998 have filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the intervening insurance company, Lightning Rod Mutual Insurance, contending that the "defective workmanship" and "wear and tear" clauses of their homeowners policy do not exclude coverage for the repair of their water- and mold-damaged home. Dan Pence and Grace Bultemeier, et al. v. Howard Atkinson, et al., No. 32-D01-0201-CC-12 (Ind. Cir. Ct., Hendricks Cty.).
According to the plaintiffs' May 10 brief in support of their motion, the homeowners, Dan Pence and …
UPCOMING CONFERENCES
HarrisMartin's Webinar Series: Water Contamination Litigation Presented by EisnerAmper
May 06, 2025
