Some policyholders cite the Minnesota trial court decision in
St. Paul Fire and Marine vs. A.P.I. Inc. (Minn. Dist.
Court, Ramsey County, No. C9-02-8084, J. Finley Order dated May 13,
2004) as rejecting the Fourth Circuit's holding in In re
Wallace & Gale Co.,385 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 2004). The
argument is incorrect for several reasons.
First, Judge Finley's May 2004 decision in API did
not even address the core holding in Wallace & Gale
but rather simply ruled on the burden of proof issue, concluding
that it was insurers' burden to prove that the claims fell
within the completed operations hazard. (5/13/04 API
Order at 16-17.) Because the completed operations definition
is part of the policy limits and not an exclusion, this conclusion
is very questionable. See, e.g.,
Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 178 N.W.2d 610, 614 (Minn. 1970)
["the burden of proof rests upon the party claiming coverage
under an insurance policy"]; Fibreboard Corp. v.
Hartford, 16 Cal.App.4th 492,
