Court of Appeals holds that allegation of bead-blasting is allegation of physical injury to property

I have been discussing Essex Ins. Co. v. BloomSouth Flooring Corp. in my last couple of posts.

Suffolk was the general contractor and BloomSouth was the subcontractor that installed the defective carpeting. Suffolk alleged in its lawsuit against BloomSouth that as a result of BloomSouth's installation of the defective carpet the concrete floor beneath the carpet had to be bead-blasted. The court interpreted that allegation as alleging "physical injury to property, viz, the concrete substrate."

The court held, more specifically, that the bead-blasting allegation was part of a remedial measure, not a replacement process. The decision does not explain why that distinction is important under the terms of the policy.