Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,300+ case briefs...

Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
405 A.2d 788 (1979)


Calvin and Janice Weedo (plaintiffs) retained Stone-E-Brick, Inc. (Stone) (defendant) to perform masonry work on their home. The completed masonry work showed signs of faulty workmanship and had to be replaced. Vivino (defendant), a general contractor, hired Stone to perform masonry work on a house for the Gellases (plaintiffs). That masonry work also showed signs of faulty workmanship and had to be replaced. Stone had a general automobile-liability policy with Pennsylvania National Mutual Insurance Company (Pennsylvania National) that was in effect at the time Stone performed the faulty work for the plaintiffs. This policy included comprehensive general liability coverage (CGL) provisions. Under the CGL provisions, Pennsylvania National agreed to pay “on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of . . . bodily injury . . . or property damage to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence . . . .” The policy excluded coverage for breaches of implied or express warranties. The insurance policy also excluded coverage for liabilities assumed by Stone under a contract. This exclusion contained a clause excluding the warranties of fitness or quality of Wall’s products or warranties that Wall’s work was done in a workmanlike manner. The Weedos sued Stone for damages arising from Stone’s shoddy workmanship. The Gellases sued Vivino, who sued Stone. The appeals court held that the exclusions in the policy were ambiguous and should be interpreted in favor of Wall, because one exclusion excluded coverage for the repair or replacement of faulty workmanship, while another separate exclusion excluded breaches of warranty. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification to review the Appellate Division’s decision.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Clifford, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 370,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,300 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial