Owners Ins. Co. v. Tibke Constr., Inc. v. Joey Brown, Sonya Brown & Jerry’s Excavating, Inc., 2017 SD 51.  Homeowners sued a general contractor and a subcontractor for damages to their home.  The general contractor was insured under a CGL policy and requested defense and indemnification from its insurer.  The insurer disputed coverage but defended the general contractor under a reservation of rights.  The insurer later filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a judgment that the CGL policy did not provide coverage for the general contractor against the homeowners’ allegations.  The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  The circuit court denied their motions, finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the foreseeability of the homeowners’ damages.  Both parties filed petitions for intermediate appeal, which the Court granted and consolidated.  Per Justice Kern, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment in the favor of the insurer but reversed the denial of summary judgment in favor of the general contractor, explaining: “The circuit court erred by denying [the general contractor’s] motion for summary judgment on the question whether the [homeowners’] claims are covered by the CGL policy.  While factual questions regarding the foreseeability of the expansive soils under the house may have been relevant to whether [the general contractor] breached a duty to the [homeowners] in the underlying suit, they are not relevant to the existence of coverage under the policy.  The alleged failure to test the soil at the construction site was an occurrence, which triggered coverage.  Neither exclusion . . . preclude[s] coverage in this case.  The CGL policy requires [the insurer] to defend [the general contractor] against [the homeowners’] suit for damages.”