<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>CGL policies Archives - Claims Journal</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.claimsjournal.com/topics/cgl-policies/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.claimsjournal.com/topics/cgl-policies/</link>
	<description>Insurance news and resources for the claims industry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:14:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>District Court Finds Policy Required Matching Color for Replacement Panels That Were Damaged</title>
		<link>https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/east/2015/06/23/264097.htm</link>
		
						<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steven Plitt]]></dc:creator>
						<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:27:42 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[East News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CGL policies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property damage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[replacement panel matching issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steve Plitt]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=264097</guid>

							<description><![CDATA[Jurisdictions are split on the question of whether commercial general liability policies require matching of damaged physical property beyond the repair of the damaged property. Compare, e.g., Cedar Bluff Townhome Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 &#8230;]]></description>
				
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Legislation Regulating Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Cannot be Applied Retroactively</title>
		<link>https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/southeast/2013/04/01/226065.htm</link>
		
						<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steven Plitt]]></dc:creator>
						<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 06:46:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Southeast News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CGL policies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[faulty workmanship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South carolina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steve Plitt]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=226065</guid>

							<description><![CDATA[On January 26, 2011 the general assembly of the South Carolina legislature amended S.C. CODE ANN. § 38-61-70 to require all commercial general liability insurance policies to provide coverage for “property damage or bodily injury resulting from faulty workmanship, exclusive &#8230;]]></description>
				
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
