Builders' risk insurance : interpreting the usual faulty workmanship and LEG exclusions inconnection with Ledcor and Acciona

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
  <record>
    <leader>00000cam a22000004b 4500</leader>
    <controlfield tag="001">MAP20190022439</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="003">MAP</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="005">20190731133206.0</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="008">190723s20180313esp||||       ||| ||spa d</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">MAP</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">spa</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">MAP</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">325</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20190010245</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Cantin, Marie-Claude</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="245" ind1="0" ind2="0">
      <subfield code="a">Builders' risk insurance</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">: interpreting the usual faulty workmanship and LEG exclusions inconnection with Ledcor and Acciona</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">Marie-Claude Cantin, Jean Hébert</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">[Quebec]</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">Lavery Lawyers</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">2018</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">3 p. </subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">The issue in Ledcor was whether the builder's risk policy taken out by the contractor that was contractually responsible for cleaning the windows of a building, covered damage to the windows caused by its poor cleaning work. The financial impact was significant since the cost of re-doing the cleaning was $45,000, while the cost of replacing the damaged windows amounted to $2.5 million.The Supreme Court decided that only the cost of re-doing the cleaning was excluded and soreplacement of the windows, which was damage resulting from the faulty workmanship, was covered.</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="610" ind1="2" ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20100047712</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Acciona</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="610" ind1="2" ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20190010221</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Ledcor</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080617448</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Jurisprudencia de seguros</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080608514</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Seguro de construcción</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20190010238</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">London Engineering Group</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20190010252</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Hébert, Jean</subfield>
    </datafield>
  </record>
</collection>