The insurance company says that since the engine was removed in the process of doing the work, the work was originally performed on the entire engine. The insured argues in opposition that the work was performed only on the parts of the engine that later malfunctioned and that the amount of coverage should be the cost of the second repair job, minus the cost of the first repair job, less the deductible.

Minnesota Subscriber

A

The question centers on the scope of the work performed exclusion. If, as here, an engine is repaired by work on a few specific parts, is the entire engine incorporated in the definition of the insured's work, or is the definition limited to the labor and materials involved in fixing those specific parts?

Exclusions should always be interpreted as narrowly as possible and in favor of the insured if there is any ambiguity present. Following these precepts, the insured should have the coverage for which he is arguing. In this case, the insured had to repair some parts of the engine, not the entire engine; and presumably, the customer was presented with a bill that covered the repair work to the specific parts of the engine that needed to be repaired, not a bill that showed repair work on the entire engine. Therefore, that is the only part of the “work performed” by the insured that is excluded from coverage. The fact that the insured had to remove the engine to repair parts of it does not mean that work was done on the entire engine. The work contract between the insured and the customer and the bill paid by the customer should reflect the extent of the work performed by the insured and thus, should act as the guides to just what is excluded under the garage form.