PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Exclusions/Exceptions / Eighth Circuit Finds No Coverage Under “Ensuing Loss” Provision Under Arkansas Law

Eighth Circuit Finds No Coverage Under “Ensuing Loss” Provision Under Arkansas Law

April 18, 2025 by Miguel Rodriguez

“Ensuing loss” provisions have long been the subject of nuanced arguments in insurance litigation. The provisions, which sometimes afford coverage for a “covered loss” stemming from an expressly excluded peril, serve as fodder for policyholders to attempt to argue a policy is ambiguous, often where the losses are clearly excluded. Ensuing loss provision disputes can be fact-intensive and should be evaluated carefully. While this area of the law is generally well-developed in state and federal courts, some jurisdictions have yet to define their position on the applicability of certain ensuing loss provisions. In Bob Robison Commercial Flooring Inc. v. RLI Insurance Co., the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals considered one of those jurisdictions — Arkansas.

In Bob Robison, Nabholz Construction hired Bob Robison Commercial Flooring Inc. (BRCF) to install a vinyl gym floor with painted basketball and volleyball lines at an Arkansas middle school. BRCF installed the floor and subcontracted with Robert Liles Parking Lot Services to paint the floor. Liles completed the paintjob, but its work was faulty, leaving crooked lines, incorrect markings, and smudges. Because the paint could not simply be removed to correct Liles’ faulty work, BRCF spent $181,415.39 to replace the flooring and repaint the lines.

BRCF filed a claim for the project loss with RLI Insurance Co. under BRCF’s builder’s risk policy. RLI investigated the loss and denied the claim because the policy “excludes coverage for loss or damage caused by errors in covered property due to workmanship.” The exclusion and ensuing loss provision stated:

PERILS EXCLUDED

2. “We” do not pay for loss or damage that is caused by or results from one or more of the following:

* * * * *

d. “Defects, Errors, Or Omissions In Property” – “We” do not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from inherent defects, errors, or omissions in covered property (whether negligent or not) relating to:

1) design or specifications;

2) workmanship or construction; or

3) repair, renovation, or remodeling.

But if a defect, error or omission as described above results in a covered peril, “we” do cover the loss or damage caused by that covered peril.

BRCF sued RLI in state court and conceded the faulty workmanship (the paintjob) was excluded but alleged that the ensuing loss provision “does cover the irreparable damage caused to the vinyl gym floor as a result of the subcontractor’s negligence.” RLI removed the case to the Eastern District of Kansas and moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of RLI, ruling that the policy unambiguously excluded coverage for Liles’ defective workmanship, which was the sole cause of the damage.

On appeal, BRCF argued that the district court erred because the ensuing loss provision “provides coverage for the replacement cost of the vinyl gym floor.” BRCF argued that the “definition of covered peril conflicts with the ensuing loss clause” creating an ambiguity that should have been resolved in its favor. The court rejected that argument, finding that the policy provisions are not conflicting, and the ensuing loss provision “restores coverage if an excluded peril results in a loss caused by a covered peril.” The court explained:

[The ensuing loss provision] applies to a second loss caused by a covered peril that the excluded peril may have set in motion, like the San Francisco fires that resulted from the 1906 earthquake.

The court also rejected BRCF’s argument that the ensuing loss provision triggered covered for the replacement of the gym floor. Finding no Arkansas precedent on point, the court turned to the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Balfour Beatty, in which the court held that when there is only one cause for the loss, an ensuing loss provision will not open coverage:

[An ensuing loss provision] is only triggered when one (excluded) peril results in a distinct (covered) peril, meaning there must be two separate events for the Exception to trigger.

Under the Balfour rationale, the Eighth Circuit held that “if Liles’s faulty workmanship was the sole cause of damage to the gym floor, the faulty painting did not result in a covered peril; the painting ‘was itself the peril.’” In other words, because there was no other damage or peril to the gym floor apart from Liles’ faulty workmanship (the excluded peril), the ensuing loss provision could not restore coverage for the botched paintjob. Accordingly, the Eight Circuit affirmed the summary judgment ruling.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Texas Appeals Court Finds Project Owner Excluded From Coverage as Claimants’ Statutory Employer

Next Article »

Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle

About Miguel Rodriguez

Miguel Rodriguez is an associate at Carlton Fields in Orlando, Florida. Connect with Miguel on LinkedIn.

Related Articles

  1. Fifth Circuit Holds That Ensuing Loss Provision of Builders’ Risk Policy Requires Two Separate Events to Qualify for the Construction Exclusion Carve-Out
  2. Florida Appellate Court Determines Faulty Workmanship Exclusion in Homeowner’s Policy Is Not Ambiguous and Thus Damage Caused by Contractor’s Conduct Is Not a Covered Loss
  3. Look Beneath the Surface: No Coverage for DC Row House Collapse Under Builder’s Risk Policy
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person
  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle
  • Eighth Circuit Finds No Coverage Under “Ensuing Loss” Provision Under Arkansas Law

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing