quoting Corpus Juris Secundum, Insurance, Section 1235 (2009). Similarly, the Eleventh District has held: “ ‘Insurance coverage is bottomed on the concept of fortuity. Applying this rule in the construction context, truly accidental property damage generally is covered because such claims and risks fit within the statistical abstract. Conversely, faulty workmanship claims generally are not cov ered, except for their consequential damages, because they are not fortuitous. In short, contractors’ “business risks” are not covered by insurance, but derivative damages are. The key issues are whether the contractor controlled the process leading to the damages and whether the damages were anticipated. “ ‘Coverage analysis lar Dist. No. 05CA008664, 2006-Ohio-153, 2006 WL 120041, at ¶ 9-10 (<HOLDING>); Heile v. Herrmann, 136 Ohio App.3d 351,
holding that a contractors delay in remedying deficiencies in its work is a claim for economic losses and not an accident and therefore not an occurrence  holding that contractor could recover damages from owner for losses due to delay although contractor agreed to assume responsibility for timely completing work for agreed compensation because owner agreed to be liable for causing delays in contractors work schedule holding that an insureds personal belief that he was not liable for an accident provided no basis for submitting the question of the reasonableness of his delay in notification to a jury when the insured knew the day after the accident that it had been claimed that the cable he had installed had caused the accident holding that an intended damages exclusion was in pari materia with language in the policy defining an occurrence under the policy as an accident holding that there was no coverage because there was no occurrence within the meaning of the policy because defective workmanship does not constitute an accident or an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy