California and Illinois Hold Accidental Contamination Provisions Afford No Coverage
|
|
- Lilian Gibson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 California and Illinois Hold Accidental Contamination Provisions Afford No Coverage By Rina Carmel November 21, 2011 Two recent cases have examined policy definitions of accidental contamination and accidental product contamination under a product recall issued to a food distributor and a malicious tampering/accidental contamination policy issued to a food manufacturer, respectively. In both cases, the insureds food products were not actually contaminated, although the insureds incurred costs when contamination was suspected. Both courts read the policy language carefully and concluded that under the facts presented, no coverage existed. Fresh Express v. Beazley Syndicate The claim in Fresh Express Inc. v. Beazley Syndicate 2623/623 at Lloyd s, No. H035246, 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1265 (Sept. 8, 2011) (ordered published Oct. 4, 2011) came about as a result of the 2006 spinach E. coli scare. The insured, Fresh Express Inc., was in the business of distributing bagged fresh spinach and other leafy greens. Fresh Express did not grow spinach itself but bought spinach from various farms. To reduce the risk of E. coli contamination, Fresh Express had established good agricultural practices (GAPs). Fresh Express required the farms from where it bought spinach to follow its GAPs. However, in August 2006, Fresh Express violated its own company procedures by making spot purchases of spinach from farms that did not follow its GAPs. The following month, in September 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a no consumption advisory, warning consumers not [to] eat bagged fresh spinach due to an outbreak of E. coli 0157:H7, a particularly virulent strain of the pathogen. According to the FDA advisory, there had already been reports of 50 cases of illness and one death. At the time it issued the advisory, the FDA did not know the source of the E. coli outbreak. Within a few hours, Fresh Express decided to stop distributing spinach products. Fresh Express did not actually initiate a product recall, even though it had bought spinach from farms that did not follow its GAPs. Fresh Express asserted that its decision was based on the facts that retailers had already stopped selling spinach, consumers were advised not to eat spinach, and that a recall would not have been as effective as the FDA advisory and would have damaged Fresh Express s reputation. The FDA conducted an investigation to trace the source of the E. coli outbreak. It investigated Fresh Express, the farms from where Fresh Express bought spinach, and spinach distributors and farms that were unrelated to Fresh Express. Within two weeks, the FDA determined that the source of the outbreak was a distributor and farm that were unrelated to Fresh Express. The FDA then withdrew its advisory..
2 Fresh Express made a claim under its Malicious Contamination, Accidental Contamination, and Products Extortion Insurance policy, asserting it had sustained a total of nearly $18.7 million in losses in connection with the E. coli outbreak and the FDA advisory. The specific categories of alleged losses consisted of lost profits on spinach and non-spinach products, contractual payments, in-field contractual obligation costs, customer credit memo costs, disposal costs, rebranding costs, and consultant costs. The total limits of the product recall policy were $12 million. The product recall policy provided coverage for insured events, defined to include accidental contamination as well as malicious contamination and products extortion which were not at issue in the case. The policy s insuring agreement stated that the insurer would reimburse [the insured] for losses as specified in this Policy arising out of Insured Events incurred by [the insured] only where such losses arise because of Accidental Contamination... (Ellipses and paragraph divisions omitted.) The policy defined accidental contamination to mean: Error by [Fresh Express] in the manufacture, production, processing, preparation, assembly, blending, mixing, compounding, packaging or labeling (including instructions for use) of any Insured Products or error by [the insured] in the storage or distribution of any Insured Products whilst in the care or custody of [Fresh Express] which causes [Fresh Express] to have reasonable cause to believe that the use or consumption of such Insured Products has led or would lead to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death of any person(s) or animal(s) physically manifesting itself by way of clear, obvious or visible symptoms within 120 days of use or consumption. The insurer disclaimed coverage. Fresh Express filed suit for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, alleging that its spot purchases from farms that did not follow its GAPs were errors under the policy, which gave it reasonable cause to believe that its products were partially responsible for the E. coli outbreak. Following a bench trial, the trial court ruled in favor of Fresh Express. Specifically, the trial court found that Fresh Express had suffered losses... caused by an Insured Event, here the 2006 E. coli outbreak, and that the losses were covered under the product recall policy. The trial court found that the insurer had breached the policy, because the insured s spot purchases from farms that did not follow its GAPs were errors under the policy. The trial court ruled that there was no breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court awarded the policy limits of $12 million as damages.
3 The California Court of Appeal reversed. It held that no coverage exists under a first-party product recall policy, because Fresh Express s errors namely, violating its own company procedures by buying spinach from farms that did not follow its GAPs did not give rise to coverage for accidental contamination, as that term was defined in the policy, and secondly, Fresh Express s errors were not linked to its losses sustained during the 2006 E. coli spinach contamination scare. The court focused on the policy definition of accidental contamination as well as the requirement of a link between the insured s losses and its errors. First, the court of appeals rejected the trial court s ruling that the insured event of accidental contamination was the E. coli outbreak. Instead, the court of appeals followed the policy language, which defined accidental contamination to mean an error by Fresh Express that caused it to reasonably believe that use or consumption of its products would lead to bodily injury. Under the policy definition, the E. coli outbreak was not an error by the insured. Therefore, the E. coli outbreak was not accidental contamination. Second, even though Fresh Express had committed errors within the meaning of the policy, namely buying spinach from farms that did not follow its GAPs, there was no evidence to show that such errors had any connection to the E. coli outbreak or the FDA advisory. Rather, the sole cause of the outbreak and the advisory was an unrelated entity s contaminated spinach not any errors by the insured. Based on the policy s requirement that losses arise because of Accidental Contamination (emphasis added), the court of appeals determined that the requisite nexus for coverage was missing. Fresh Express has filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. As of the date of posting, the California Supreme Court has not decided whether to accept review. If the California Supreme Court accepts review, the court of appeal s decision will not be citable. Little Lady Foods v. Houston Casualty Another recent case, Little Lady Foods, Inc. v. Hous. Cas. Co., No. 10 C 8280, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2011), came about as a result of listeria contamination in the insured s Little Lady burrito product. Little Lady had begun to produce its burrito product through a new process that left the burrito partially uncooked when it left the plant. For that reason, Little Lady was required, by both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its own Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Plan (HACCP) to test the burrito product and equipment for harmful bacteria before shipping the burrito product.
4 Tests in January 2010 showed the presence of listeria. Of the seven strains of listeria bacteria, only one, listeria monocytogenes (LM), causes listeriosis, which can cause bodily injury in humans. However, a test result showing any strain of listeria bacteria meant that LM could be present, meaning that Little Lady could not distribute its burrito product until it confirmed that LM was not present. Little Lady notified the USDA and its customer and placed a hold on 57,374 cases of its burrito product. Little Lady made a claim under its Malicious Product Tampering/Accidental Product Contamination policy. That policy provided that the insurer agrees to indemnify [Little Lady] for LOSS resulting directly from an ACCIDENAL PRODUCT CONTAMINATION first discovered by [Little Lady] during the Policy Period. The policy defined loss to include expenses related to chemical analysis in order to ascertain whether [Little Lady s] PRODUCT(S) have been contaminated and/or to ascertain the potential effect of the ACCIDENTAL PRODUCT CONTAMINATION. The policy defined accidental product contamination to mean: any accidental or unintentional contamination, impairment or mislabeling (including mislabeling of instructions for use) during the manufacture, blending, mixing, compounding, packaging, labeling, preparation, production or processing... of [Little Lady s] PRODUCTS... provided always that the consumption or use of [Little Lady s] CONTAMINATED PRODUCT(S) has, within 120 days of such consumption or use, either resulted, or may likely result, in... physical symptoms of bodily injury, sickness or disease or death of any person(s)... The insurer advised Little Lady that the product must test positive for LM specifically. Tests for LM were negative. The insurer accordingly disclaimed coverage. Little Lady sold some of the product on the secondary market, and the remainder had to be destroyed. Little Lady sued its insurer for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court held, under Illinois law, that the policy afforded no coverage for Little Lady s claim. The parties disagreed as to whether the phrase may likely result in the definition quoted above meant that harm to be consumers had to be probable or merely possible. The court found that that debate misses the point, because harm was neither probable nor possible, because the product did not contain LM. Therefore, the policy was not ambiguous and afforded no coverage. The court further stated that the insured was essentially asking the court to rewrite the policy to provide coverage any time the insured feared contamination. The court further reaffirmed that public policy in particular, food manufacturers duties under USDA regulations plays no role in interpreting insurance contracts. Because the policy afforded no coverage, the court held that the insurer was not liable for breach of contract or bad faith. Accordingly, the court granted the insurer s motion for summary judgment and denied Little Lady s motion for summary judgment.
5 Little Lady has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Conclusion Fresh Express and Little Lady provide useful guidance to insurers and insureds alike on the parameters of coverage in claims involving suspected but not actual food contamination. Both sides should keep in mind that the Seventh Circuit and the California Supreme Court, if it accepts review, could change or refine the analyses, however. Rina Carmel is with Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP in Los Angeles, California
Risk: Food Contamination Liability: Is Your Brand Prepared?
Human Resources & Risk and Safety Executive Study Group Risk: Food Contamination Liability: Is Your Brand Prepared? February 9, 2017 Austin, Texas Justin F. Lavella Partner Blank Rome LLP #104863430 How
More informationCase 1:18-cv LTS-DCF Document 1 Filed 01/11/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO.
Case 1:18-cv-00262-LTS-DCF Document 1 Filed 01/11/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BLESSINGS, INC. D/B/A BLESSINGS SEAFOOD A/KA BLESSING AND BLESSING SEAFOOD, Plaintiff,
More informationPRODUCT RECALL CLAIMS: ARE YOU COVERED? (CLM018)
NYI: 524651560 PRODUCT RECALL CLAIMS: ARE YOU COVERED? (CLM018) Speakers: Elisabeth Eckles, Director, Global Claims, Coca-Cola Company Edward M. Joyce, Partner, Jones Day The views expressed by the speakers
More informationProduct Recall Exposures for Agribusinesses
Product Recall Exposures for Agribusinesses #IRMI2017 Agribusinesses can be particularly vulnerable to product recall, and the past few years have seen more frequent recalls. Unfortunately, the recalls
More informationCase 1:15-cv LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:15-cv-00236-LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF/ COUNTER-DEFENDANT
More informationILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. URSZULA MARCHWIANY et al., Appellants. Docket No SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
Page 1 ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. URSZULA MARCHWIANY et al., Appellants. Docket No. 101598. SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS 222 Ill. 2d 472; 856 N.E.2d 439; 2006 Ill. LEXIS 1116; 305 Ill.
More informationI. Introduction. Appeals this year was Fisher v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2015 COA
Fisher v. State Farm: A Case Analysis September 2015 By David S. Canter I. Introduction One of the most important opinions to be handed down from the Colorado Court of Appeals this year was Fisher v. State
More informationFarm-to-Consumer Legal Defense FUIK
^! Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense FUIK Legal Representation Political Action Education September 29, 2009 ] - 33 - n Attn: Paul Hoge Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture w U Bureau of Food Safety _ S2
More information2013 YEAR IN REVIEW SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN 2013: INSURANCE LAW UPDATE. By Jennifer Kelley
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 2013 YEAR IN REVIEW SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN 2013: INSURANCE LAW UPDATE By Jennifer Kelley Lennar Corp. v. Markel American Ins. Co., No. 11-0394, 2013 Tex. LEXIS 597 (Tex. Aug. 23,
More informationProduct Recall Insurance
Product Recall Insurance Product Recall The Growing Risk The advent of product recall now being included in the everyday lexicon of the business world has raised the awareness of the need for businesses
More informationProduct Recall Insurance
Product Recall Insurance The advent of product recall now being included in the everyday lexicon of the business world has raised the awareness of the need for businesses to address the financial, moral,
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THOMAS H. HEATON, ADM. OF THE ESTATE OF CLIFF ADAM HEATON
[Cite as Heaton v. Carter, 2006-Ohio-633.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THOMAS H. HEATON, ADM. OF THE ESTATE OF CLIFF ADAM HEATON -vs- Plaintiff-Appellant JUDGES: Hon.
More informationRecent Developments in California Law Regarding Noncompetition Agreements
Recent Developments in California Law Regarding Noncompetition Agreements Employment Law Commentary, Vol. 18, No. 10 Eric Akira Tate October 2006 Employment + Labor Newsletter PDF VERSION In many states,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON JANETTE LEDING OCHOA, ) ) No. 67693-8-I Appellant, ) ) DIVISION ONE v. ) ) PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC ) INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign ) corporation, THE PROGRESSIVE
More informationInsurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer*
Insurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer* By: Thomas F. Lucas McKenna, Storer, Rowe, White & Farrug Chicago A part of every insurer s loss evaluation
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00527-CV In re Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY O P I N I O N Real party in interest Guy
More informationState v. Continental Insurance Company
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2012-2013 State v. Continental Insurance Company John M. Newman john.newman@umontana.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr
More informationFATIGUE TECHNOLOGY INC. PURCHASE ORDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS DATED JANUARY 4, 2006
FATIGUE TECHNOLOGY INC. PURCHASE ORDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS DATED JANUARY 4, 2006 1. CONTRACT. Fatigue Technology Inc. s, hereinafter called FTI, purchase order, or change order to a purchase order, collectively
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc STATE ex rel. CITY OF GRANDVIEW, MISSOURI Relator, v. No. SC95283 THE HONORABLE JACK R. GRATE, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN PROHIBITION Opinion issued April 5, 2016
More informationBetter Understanding Efficient Proximate Cause in California Insurance Claims
Better Understanding Efficient Proximate Cause in California Insurance Claims A. Introduction. by William A. Daniels www.danielslaw.com Sherman Oaks, CA Whenever there are two or more causes of a loss
More informationProduct Recall. November 2017
Product Recall November 2017 Product Recall I ll be back! 1 Overview Learning Objectives Recall Trends Coverage Overview Recall in Action 2 Recall Trends 10 Years on! We re back! What s changed? 3 Recall
More information2015 IL App (2d) No Opinion filed March 26, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
No. 2-14-0292 Opinion filed March 26, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT BITUMINOUS CASUALTY ) Appeal from the Circuit Court CORPORATION, ) of Kendall County. ) Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationLIMITED COVERAGE FOR LOSS BY WET ROT, DRY ROT, BACTERIA, FUNGI, OR PROTISTS
This endorsement changes the policy Page 1 of 7 -- PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY -- LIMITED COVERAGE FOR LOSS BY WET ROT, DRY ROT, BACTERIA, FUNGI, OR PROTISTS 1. The following exclusion is added under item
More informationUNDERSTANDING CRIME POLICIES AND PRESENTMENT OF CLAIMS
UNDERSTANDING CRIME POLICIES AND PRESENTMENT OF CLAIMS Gabrielle T. Kelly BROUSE McDOWELL 600 Superior Avenue, Suite 1600 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 gkelly@brouse.com As fraud and embezzlement in the workplace
More information3 Recent Insurance Cases That Defend The Duty To Defend
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 3 Recent Insurance Cases That Defend The Duty To Defend
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case 4:14-cv-00849 Document 118 Filed in TXSD on 09/03/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff,
More informationPCI Northeast General Counsel Seminar
PCI Northeast General Counsel Seminar September 18-19, 2017 Insurance Law Developments Laura A. Foggan Crowell & Moring LLP lfoggan@crowell.com 202-624-2774 Crowell & Moring 1 Zhaoyun Xia v. ProBuilders
More informationNORTHWEST INSURANCE LAW
NORTHWEST INSURANCE LAW QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER WINTER 2018 Williams Kastner has been serving clients in the Pacific Nor thwest since our Seattle office opened in 1929. With more than 60 attorneys in offices
More informationWhen Trouble Knocks, Will Directors and Officers Policies Answer?
When Trouble Knocks, Will Directors and Officers Policies Answer? Michael John Miguel Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP Los Angeles, California The limit of liability theory lies within the imagination of the
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas OPINION No. 04-16-00773-CV FARMERS TEXAS COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant v. Jennifer L. ZUNIGA and Janet Northrup as Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED January 27, 2004 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 242967 Oakland Circuit Court EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY,
More informationCrisis Management Product profile and proposal form. Insurance cover for the food & beverage industry
Crisis Management Product profile and proposal form Insurance cover for the Liberty s Food & Beverage Insurance Policy is a recall cover specifically tailored for the food and beverage industry. Designed
More informationCOUNSEL JUDGES OPINION
AMBASSADOR INS. CO. V. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., 1984-NMSC-107, 102 N.M. 28, 690 P.2d 1022 (S. Ct. 1984) AMBASSADOR INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationPriscilla Williams, individually and as conservator for minor children Q.W. and E.W., JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 07CA1667 El Paso County District Court No. 05CV5143 Honorable Edward S. Colt, Judge Priscilla Williams, individually and as conservator for minor children
More informationBOVINE AGISTMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of,, by and between Day Spring Farm (Agister) and
BOVINE AGISTMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of,, by and between Day Spring Farm (Agister) and (Owner). Recitals Agister possesses dairy facilities at 21388 Steptoe Hill Road, Middleburg, VA
More informationCERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE AFTER THE OMNI DECISION THE 6TH ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION SYMPOSIUM
CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE AFTER THE OMNI DECISION THE 6TH ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION SYMPOSIUM Prepared by: Jana S. Reist 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: 214-712-9512 Telecopy: 214-712-9540
More informationGSA - CARB 03/14/2017 CARB ATCM CERTIFICATION SERVICE TERMS
CARB ATCM 93120 CERTIFICATION SERVICE TERMS These Service Terms shall govern the California Air Resources Board Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) To Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions From Composite Wood
More informationLATITUDE ENGINEERING - GENERAL TERMS OF SALE
1. General Scope LATITUDE ENGINEERING - GENERAL TERMS OF SALE These General Terms of Sale ( Terms ), together with the terms and conditions set forth on the purchase order form ( Order Form ) (collectively
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 No. 06-0867 444444444444 PINE OAK BUILDERS, INC., PETITIONER, V. GREAT AMERICAN LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationATLANTA AUSTIN GENEVA HOUSTON LONDON NEW YORK SACRAMENTO WASHINGTON, DC
By Stephany Olsen LeGrand Institute of Energy Law, 5th Oilfield Services Conference - October, 2015 Unsurprisingly, serious incidents in the oil and gas industry, specifically those resulting in harm to
More informationcoli outbreaks at Chipotle restaurants in 2015 brought increased attention to this issue and
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN RESPONDING TO AND DEFENDING AGAINST CLAIMS INVOLVING E. COLI EXPOSURE BY: TED WALDECK INTRODUCTION Although E. coli outbreaks are not a recent phenomenon, media coverage of
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HASTINGS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION May 16, 2017 9:15 a.m. v No. 331612 Berrien Circuit Court GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY OF LC No. 14-000258-NF
More informationNotice of Privacy Practices
Notice of Privacy Practices THIS NOTICE DESCRIBES HOW MEDICAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU MAY BE USED AND DISCLOSED AND HOW YOU CAN GET ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION. PLEASE REVIEW IT CAREFULLY. WHO WILL FOLLOW
More informationThe Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
CHAPTER 18 SAMPLE ERISA PLAN DOCUMENT CHECKLIST l The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is a federal law that sets minimum standards for most voluntarily established pension and health
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ST. JOHN MACOMB OAKLAND HOSPITAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION December 8, 2016 9:00 a.m. v No. 329056 Macomb Circuit Court STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE LC No.
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PERMA-PIPE, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. 13 C 2898 ) vs. ) Judge Ronald A. Guzmán ) LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE ) CORPORATION,
More informationCONTAMINATED PRODUCT INSURANCE (CPI)
CONTAMINATED PRODUCT INSURANCE (CPI) Access Experience. Get Results. Most companies invest a great deal in creating a product and, ultimately, a brand consumers will trust. While it takes years to establish
More informationModule 8: Managing Liability and Risk
Module 8: Managing Liability and Risk Rod Rejesus Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, N.C. State University Ted Feitshans Lecturer and Extension Specialist, N.C. State University Annette Dunlap
More informationBusiness Insurance. January 31, 2014 Page 1 of 6, see disclaimer on final page
Business Insurance Page 1 of 6, see disclaimer on final page Business Insurance What is business insurance? As you would expect, business insurance includes policies of insurance (such as fire insurance)
More informationThe Right To Reimbursement Of Defense Costs?
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com The Right To Reimbursement Of Defense Costs?
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 17-1333 Alexandra Sims lllllllllllllllllllllplaintiff - Appellant v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company llllllllllllllllllllldefendant
More informationInsurance Law Update By: Katie E. Jacobi and Michael L. Young HeplerBroom LLC, St. Louis
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 24, Number 1 (24.1.13) Insurance Law Update By: Katie E. Jacobi and Michael L. Young
More information[Cite as Ward v. United Foundries, Inc., 129 Ohio St.3d 292, 2011-Ohio-3176.]
[Cite as Ward v. United Foundries, Inc., 129 Ohio St.3d 292, 2011-Ohio-3176.] WARD ET AL. v. UNITED FOUNDRIES, INC., APPELLANT, ET AL.; GULF UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. [Cite as Ward v. United
More informationVermont Bar Association 134 th Annual Meeting
Vermont Bar Association 134 th Annual Meeting Year in Review Insurance Law Seminar Materials Faculty Samuel Hoar, Jr., Esq. Paul J. Perkins, Esq. September 21, 2012 Lake Morey Resort, Fairlee, VT 2012
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D CORRECTED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2008 PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Case No. 5D07-1176 CORRECTED RURAL/METRO
More informationState Underground Petroleum (SUPERB)
State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response Bank Act (SUPERB) Overview Third Party Issues 44-2-40 40 44-2-2020 Insurance Issues 44-2-70 44-2-130 Class Action Issues Prerequisites for class certification
More informationCYBER-CRIMES: How Have Courts Dealt with the Insurance Implications of this Emerging Risk? By Alan Rutkin
CYBER-CRIMES: How Have Courts Dealt with the Insurance Implications of this Emerging Risk? By Alan Rutkin Insurance coverage law has one firm rule: when a new risk emerges, new coverage issues follow.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION. v. Judge John Robert Blakey MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
LLOYD S SYNDICATE 3624, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Case No. 18-cv-115 v. Judge John Robert Blakey BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE CENTER OF ILLINOIS, LLC,
More informationPrudential Prop v. Boyle
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-31-2008 Prudential Prop v. Boyle Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3930 Follow this
More informationDanger: Misclassifying Employees Can Lead to Huge Liability!
Danger: Misclassifying Employees Can Lead to Huge Liability! Paying your workers and laborers as independent contractors? Avoiding paying overtime just because certain employees are on salary? Think twice.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE APRIL 4, 2002 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE APRIL 4, 2002 Session TIMOTHY J. MIELE and wife, LINDA S. MIELE, Individually, and d/b/a MIELE HOMES v. ZURICH U.S. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MONIQUE MARIE LICTAWA, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 23, 2004 v No. 245026 Macomb Circuit Court FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 01-005205-NF Defendant-Appellee.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ALI AHMAD BAKRI, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 21, 2016 v No. 326109 Wayne Circuit Court SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, also LC No. 13-006364-NI known as HARTFORD
More information2018 Annual Conference March 14-16, 2018 Houston, Texas. Policy Limit Demands:
2018 Annual Conference March 14-16, 2018 Houston, Texas Policy Limit Demands: The New Plaintiff's Strategy and How to Protect Insurers and Defense Counsel Summary Plaintiffs have recently adopted a strategy
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MYCHELLE PROUGH, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 12, 2002 v No. 229490 Calhoun Circuit Court FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE LC No. 00-000635-CK COMPANY OF MICHIGAN,
More informationTRIGGER OF COVERAGE FOR WRONGFUL PROSECUTION CLAIMS IN 2016
TRIGGER OF COVERAGE FOR WRONGFUL PROSECUTION CLAIMS IN 2016 Benjamin C. Eggert Partner WILEY REIN LLP wileyrein.com Introduction Ideally, the criminal justice system would punish only the guilty, and
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 02-0090 444444444444 UTICA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS, PETITIONER v. AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY AND TEXAS PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE GUARANTY
More informationAdilyfe Pty Ltd 1046A Dandenong Road Carnegie VIC 3163 Australia TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE
Adilyfe Pty Ltd TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE ACCEPTANCE These Terms and Conditions of Sale (this Contract ) shall govern all orders for the purchase of products from ADILYFE Pty Ltd. or its affiliates
More informationThe Ever Changing Duty to Defend and. How It s Currently Leading to Bad faith
ACI s Insurance Coverage & Extra-Contractual Disputes The Ever Changing Duty to Defend and November 30-December 1, 2016 How It s Currently Leading to Bad faith Benjamin A. Blume Member Carroll McNulty
More informationAPPELLATE LAW UPDATE September 16, 2011 Submitted by H. Thomas Watson Horvitz & Levy LLP
APPELLATE LAW UPDATE September 16, 2011 Submitted by H. Thomas Watson Horvitz & Levy LLP SUPREME COURT: The California Supreme Court published two opinions, granted review in a third matter, and set oral
More informationDryden and ors v Johnson Matthey UKSC 2016/0140
Dryden and ors v Johnson Matthey UKSC 2016/0140 On 27 th and 28 th November 2017 the Supreme Court heard the case of Dryden and ors v Johnson Matthey Plc. The case raised important questions of the nature
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2016-0569, In the Matter of Liquidation of The Home Insurance Company, the court on October 27, 2017, issued the following order: Having considered
More informationWHAT DOES IT MEAN TO EXHAUST AN UNDERLYING LAYER OF INSURANCE?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO EXHAUST AN UNDERLYING LAYER OF INSURANCE? By Robert M. Hall Mr. Hall is an attorney, a former law firm partner, a former insurance and reinsurance executive and acts as an insurance
More informationIllinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel IDC Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 1 (8.1.13)
Property Insurance By: Michael S. Sherman Chuhak & Tecson P.C. Chicago Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Appraisers Use of Actual Cash Value v. Fair Market Value in First Party Property Claims
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No ALTRUA HEALTHSHARE, INC., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 39388 ALTRUA HEALTHSHARE, INC., v. Petitioner-Appellant, BILL DEAL, in his capacity as Director of the Idaho Department of Insurance, and the IDAHO
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER April 17, 1998 DENNIS JENNINGS, ET AL.
Present: All the Justices RICHFOOD, INC., ET AL. v. Record No. 971461 OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER April 17, 1998 DENNIS JENNINGS, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANOVER COUNTY Richard H. C.
More information11th Circuit: Computer Fraud Policy Did Not Cover Loss That Did Not Result Directly From Computer Fraud
June 2018 11th Circuit: Computer Fraud Policy Did Not Cover Loss That Did Not Result Directly From Computer Fraud The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that a computer fraud insurance
More informationUmbrella Liability Coverage
Umbrella Liability Coverage Analyses Workbook 3rd Edition TP.indd 1 5/5/06 7:02:57 PM At press time, this edition contains the most complete and accurate information currently available. Owing to the nature
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv JA-KRS.
Case: 11-14883 Date Filed: 03/22/2013 Page: 1 of 11 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-14883 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-00222-JA-KRS
More informationThis Declaration Page is attached to and forms part of certificate provisions (Form SLC-3). Previous No. «f1» Authority Ref. No. Certificate No.
This Declaration Page is attached to and forms part of certificate provisions (Form SLC-3). Previous No. «f1» Authority Ref. No. Certificate No. «f2» 1 Name and address of the Insured «f3» «f15» «f4» «f5»,
More informationKnow Your Food Suppliers New FSMA Responsibility, Liability, and Insurance
Know Your Food Suppliers New FSMA Responsibility, Liability, and Insurance Christopher Van Gundy Partner San Francisco, CA Office Frederick A. Stearns Partner Washington, DC Office Arthur S. Garrett III
More informationLeverage Your Supplier Approval Program to Proactively Reduce Your Risk
Leverage Your Supplier Approval Program to Proactively Reduce Your Risk Leverage Your Supplier Approval Program to Proactively Reduce Your Risk November 15, 2016 Joel Berrian CPCU, ARM, AIC Co-Owner Berrian
More informationUnited Tool & Mold, Inc. Jungwoo USA, LLC Terms and Conditions of Sale
United Tool & Mold, Inc. Jungwoo USA, LLC Terms and Conditions of Sale Unless United Tool & Mold, Inc. or Jungwoo USA, LLC (as the case may be, we or similar references) has entered into a written agreement
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PROGRESSIVE MICHIGAN INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED June 17, 2003 Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v No. 237926 Wayne Circuit Court AMERICAN COMMUNITY MUTUAL LC No.
More informationERISA. Representative Experience
ERISA RMKB s ERISA practice group has extensive experience representing insurance carriers, employers, plan administrators, claims administrators, and benefits plans against claims brought under the Employee
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ANPAC LOUISIANA INSURANCE COMPANY **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 14-1104 DR. STEVEN M. HORTON, ET UX. VERSUS ANPAC LOUISIANA INSURANCE COMPANY ********** APPEAL FROM THE TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES,
More informationCase 9:16-cv BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2017 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:16-cv-80987-BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2017 Page 1 of 9 THE MARBELLA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, and NORMAN SLOANE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA v. Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No
Case: 14-1628 Document: 003112320132 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-1628 FREEDOM MEDICAL SUPPLY INC, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
More informationJANUARY 25, 2012 NO CA-0820 BASELINE CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C. COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS FOURTH CIRCUIT
BASELINE CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C. VERSUS FAVROT REALTY PARTNERSHIP D/B/A CHATEAUX DIJON APARTMENTS, CHATEAUX DIJON LAND, L.L.C., D/B/A CHATEAUX DIJON APARTMENTS, CDJ APARTMENTS,
More informationEXCESS V. PRIMARY: THE EXPANSION OF BAD FAITH DEFENSE CLAIMS IN LOUISIANA. Submitted by Ryan C. Higgins
EXCESS V. PRIMARY: THE EXPANSION OF BAD FAITH DEFENSE CLAIMS IN LOUISIANA Submitted by Ryan C. Higgins I. INTRODUCTION EXCESS V. PRIMARY: THE EXPANSION OF BAD FAITH DEFENSE CLAIMS IN LOUISIANA MARCH 30,
More informationDecided: July 11, S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: July 11, 2014 S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. HINES, Presiding Justice. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter
More informationSTANDARD TERMS AND CONDITONS OF ALL PURCHASES MADE BY FRANKLIN FARMS EAST
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITONS OF ALL PURCHASES MADE BY FRANKLIN FARMS EAST Franklin Farms East, Inc. and its affiliates ( Franklin ) purchase goods from you ( Seller ) subject to the following notices,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 RONALD FERRARO Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. M & M INSURANCE GROUP, INC. No. 1133 WDA 2016 Appeal from the Order May 12,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 15 3417 HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., v. Plaintiff Appellee, KARLIN, FLEISHER & FALKENBERG, LLC, et al., Defendants Appellants. Appeal
More informationJeff Friedman, Partner Michele Borens, Partner TEI Richmond Chapter March 19, 2014
Jeff Friedman, Partner Michele Borens, Partner TEI Richmond Chapter March 19, 2014 State Tax Controversy Update Agenda MTC Compact Election Filing Methodologies Insurance Companies 2 MTC Compact Litigation
More informationKCMBA CLE June 19, I. What are an insurance company s duties to its insured?
KCMBA CLE June 19, 2018 Third-Party Bad Faith I. What are an insurance company s duties to its insured? II. III. If you are attempting to settle a case with an insurance company, how should your settlement
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 17a0489n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 17a0489n.06 No. 16-2517 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY LYNN FILEK, deceased, by the Personal Representative,
More informationALLOCATION AMONG MULTIPLE CARRIERS IN CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION
ALLOCATION AMONG MULTIPLE CARRIERS IN CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION FRED L. SHUCHART COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3850 Houston, Texas 77002 7th Annual Construction Law Symposium January
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PROGRESSIVE MICHIGAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee of KRISTINE BRENNER, UNPUBLISHED November 22, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 328869 Montmorency Circuit Court ANTHONY
More informationCoverage for Indemnity Claims in Illinois Is That Indemnity Agreement You Just Drafted Really an Insured Contract?
Insurance Law Update Seth D. Lamden and Jill B. Berkeley Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, LLP, Chicago Coverage for Indemnity Claims in Illinois Is That Indemnity Agreement You Just Drafted Really an Insured
More information