We are working with the following loss scenario: a rotational molder entrusts covered property (molds used in his business) to a sandblaster for cleaning. The sandblaster cannot adequately clean the mold by sandblasting alone, so moves to the next step, using direct heat (fire) to soften the buildup on the mold so that it can be removed. During the process, the fire warps the mold. The sandblaster's CGL carrier invokes the "care, custody and control" and "your work" exclusions in denying coverage. The rotational molder then makes a claim under his own commercial property policy (with special causes of loss form) and the commercial property carrier invokes the "faulty maintenance" exclusion in denying coverage. Our question is whether the property insurer is correct in applying this exclusion.

Ohio Subscriber

The commercial property policy's exclusions Section 3 is the "concurrent causation" set of exclusions added in the 1980s to avoid insurance recovery under the legally developed theory of "concurrent causation." This is where a loss could be said to have been caused by some non-excluded event acting in conjunction with an excluded event, such as a claim for flood damage where the cause of loss is held to be negligent construction; flood is excluded, but negligent construction was not excluded under special causes of loss forms.