|
4708 In an action by a general contractor's insurer against a drywall subcontractor's insurer for contribution to the cost of defending the general contractor in an action that did not allege negligence by the subcontractor or mention drywall, under the subcontractor's policy that included the general as an additional insured but restricted coverage to damage caused by defective work of the subcontractor, there was no potential for coverage and no liability for defense costs.CitationMONTICELLO v ESSEX (Drywall Coverage) 162 CA4 1376 [See: Norgart v Upjohn Co 21 C4 383, T/AT 9/99; Montrose v Superior Court 6 C4 287, T/AT 1/94]
|
|
