General liability insurance carried by a carpentry contractor contained an exclusion for property damage "....resulting from the influx of rain, snow or hail through the roof of any such building or structure and arising out of your roofing operations ...." The insurer based denial of liability on the exclusion for water damage to a building allegedly caused by work performed by the insured. In the course of litigation, trial court judgment for the insurance company was appealed by the insured.

It was established in evidence that the insured contractor had removed waterproof covering from the building on which it was working in order to install roof trusses. It argued that this was not a "roofing operation" associated with work performed by roofing contractors or "roofers." It was completely separate from specialized roofing work.

The appeal court found the argument without merit. It observed that the exclusion would be meaningless if it could not be applied because the insured was a carpentry contractor. The exclusion was an integral part of the policy. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in favor of the insurer and against the insured.

(COVENANT INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., Plaintiff/Appellee v. JONATHON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION ET AL., Defendants/Appellants. New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division. No. 96 00727. March 3, 1997. CCH 1997 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 6104.)