Because the defective painting could not be removed from the vinyl flooring, to correct the project error BRCF had to remove and replace the floor and paint new lines at a total cost exceeding $181,000.
In Bob Robinson Commercial Flooring Inc. v. RLI Ins. Co., No. 23-2531 (8th Cir. Mar. 19, 2025), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had occasion to determine whether an exception to property insurance exclusions known as the “ensuing loss clause,” applied to faulty work of the insured’s subcontractor.
By way of background, Nabholz Construction Company (“Nabholz”) hired Bob Robinson Commercial Flooring, Inc. (“BRCF”) to install a vinyl gym floor with painted volleyball and basketball lines at a middle school in Trumann, Arkansas. BRCF installed the gym floor and subcontracted the painting portion of the project to Robert Liles Parking Lot Services (“Liles”). Liles’s painting work was faulty, including crooked lines, incorrect markings, and smudges. Nabholz rejected the gym floor because of the subcontractor’s misapplication of the paint. Because the defective painting could not be removed from the vinyl flooring, to correct the project error BRCF had to remove and replace the floor and paint new lines at a total cost exceeding $181,000.
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com