Unsatisfactory paint work of a home does not constitute theft, vandalism, or malicious damage under policy coverage.
This Washington Appeals Court judgment unsurprisingly held that the insured’s characterising of her painting contractor’s work as theft, vandalism, or malicious mischief because the contractor misrepresented that they were a licensed contractor, couldn’t transform the loss into a covered peril under the policy.
The court approved a previous authority that “an insured may not avoid a contractual exclusion merely by affixing an additional label or separate characterization to the act or event causing the loss.”
The court referred to definitions of vandalism and malicious mischief respectively as “willful or malicious destruction or defacement of things of beauty or of public or private property” and “willful, wanton, or reckless damage or destruction of another’s property.”
The insured had failed to show that any of the contractor’s objectional paint work occurred without her prior direction or contemporaneous approval.
The faulty and defective workmanship exclusion also applied to the claim.
Coverage was excluded for “faulty or defective workmanship” inclusive of “[d]esign, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, [and] compaction” and “[m]aterials used in repair, construction, renovation or remodeling.”
“Faulty” and “defective” were undefined in the policy and the court applied the plain, ordinary, and popular meaning ““Faulty” is defined as “marked by fault or defect” or “imperfect”” and ““Defective” is defined as “imperfect in form, structure, or function.”
Even if the insured objected to the methods or appearance of the contractor’s painting of her home, it still constituted imperfect workmanship that fits within the plain understanding of “faulty” and “defective.”
On that wording the same result will follow in South Africa for the unhappy homeowner.