|
3410 The mere presence of a subcontractor’s employee on a job site is not sufficient to constitute an act or omission by the subcontractor; so under a policy covering the general contractor for injury arising from an act or omission of the subcontractor, there was no coverage for an injury to the subcontractor’s employee that resulted from activities of the general contractor unrelated to work called for in the subcontract.CitationST PAUL FIRE AND MARINE v AMERICAN DYNASTY (Mere Presence) 101 CA4 1038 [See: Myers v Interface 13 CA4 949, T/AT 4/93; Acceptance v Syufy 69 CA4 321, T/AT 2/99]
|
|
