On April 16, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed the application of a commercial general liability policy’s Prior Works Exclusion to a bodily injury claim brought against an insured roofing contractor. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Bee Quality, Inc., No. 23-CV-16782, 2025 WL 1348750 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 16, 2025).

The insured, a roofing contractor, purchased a CGL policy for the policy period of February 8, 2022, to February 8, 2023. The policy provided coverage for the insured’s “completed operations,” meaning work contracted for and finished by the insured and accepted by the customer. The policy also contained a Prior Works Exclusion, which barred coverage for bodily injury included in the products completed operations hazard and arising out of the insured’s work that was completed before February 8, 2022.

The insured was sued in a wrongful death action that arose out of an April 12, 2022, accident in which a building façade allegedly collapsed, resulting in two deaths. The underlying suit alleged that in August 2020, a windstorm caused physical damage to the structure of the relevant property, and the insured thereafter performed the repairs to the structure. The underlying suit did not specify when the insured performed the work. Still, in answering the insurer’s complaint in the coverage action, the insured admitted that the repair work was completed in December 2020.

In the coverage action, the insurer argued that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured because the Prior Works Exclusion applied to bar coverage, relying on the insured’s admission that the work at issue in the underlying lawsuit was completed in December 2020. The insured argued that whether the exclusion applied was disputed by the pleadings of the coverage action, in which the insured answered the complaint denying the insurer’s allegation that the Prior Works Exclusion applied. The insured also argued that the application of the Prior Works Exclusion was not established by the allegations of the underlying lawsuit and that the insurer’s application of the Prior Works Exclusion rendered the policy illusory.

In granting the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court stated that the unambiguous language of the Prior Works Exclusion applies to preclude coverage for the underlying lawsuit. The court also noted that it was not required to turn a blind eye to the insured’s admission that its work was completed by December 2020 because such evidence, although extrinsic to the underlying complaint, does not determine an issue critical to the underlying action. The court further stated that whether the insured may be held liable in the underlying action did not hinge on when the work was completed, as long as the work was completed before the injury. Finally, the court held that the Prior Works Exclusion did not render the policy’s coverage illusory, noting that there is clearly some coverage for accidents arising out of any of the insured’s work completed between February 8, 2022, and February 8, 2023. Ultimately, the insurer was found to have no duty to defend or indemnify the insured with respect to the underlying action.

Before this decision, the Prior Works Exclusion has been typically addressed only in the context of property damage claims, not bodily injury claims. Thus, the court’s decision regarding the applicability of a construction defect endorsement, likely intended to address property damage exposures, is of significance.

About the Author

Kari is an associate in Tressler’s Insurance Practice Group in the Chicago Office. Kari advises insurers on policy matters including professional liability, fidelity bonds, directors’ and officers’ liability, commercial general liability, employment practices liability, and first-party property claims. Additionally, she handles insurance coverage analysis disputes and litigation. Click here to read Kari’s full attorney bio.