Defense Counsel Journal - International Association of Defense ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page 430 DEFENSE COUNSEL JOURNAL–October 2012authority from other jurisdictions, we findthat ‘interruption of business’ is anunambiguous term meaning ‘cessation orsuspension of business.’ Therefore,Quality was not entitled to businessinterruption coverage for the workslowdown it experienced, and we find thetrial court did not err in grantingMichigan's motion for summaryjudgment.” 59The burden rests with thepolicyholder to prove that it is entitled tocoverage and the amount of thatentitlement. 60 In Fold-Pak Corp. v.Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., the plaintiffmanufactured and sold various types offolding food containers. 61 Nearly one-halfof the plaintiff’s business was the sale ofso-called “food pails” typically used inChinese restaurants to package takeoutfood. On April 9, 1989, a fire at theplaintiff’s plant destroyed “flexologyequipment” which was used tomanufacture the food pails. 62 As a result,plaintiff had to use a more expensiveprocess to make food pails. The defendantinsurer paid the plaintiff for the loss ofthe Flexo machine, and advanced$250,000 towards its claimed losses.Subsequently, the plaintiff submitted aclaim for $4,081,471, claiming itsdamages were recoverable under theBusiness Interruption coverage providedby the policy. Of this amount, the plaintiffdesignated $1,479,940 as “Loss ofProduction” and $2,601,531 as “ExtraExpenses.” The “Extra Expense” claimconsisted of $2,077,984 in “Increased59 Quality Oilfields, 971 S.W.2d at 639.60 Cora Pub. Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co., 619F.2d 482 (5th Cir. 1980).61 784 F. Supp. 49 (W.D.N.Y. 1992).62 Id. at 51.Cost of Production,” $200,250 in“Management Expediting Expenses” andvarious other extra expenses. Thedefendant did not pay these full amounts,resulting in the coverage action. Theplaintiff sought $4,000,000 in damages.With regard to the loss of productionclaim, the plaintiff determined that, butfor the fire, it would have produced274,444,000 food pails at its plant. Thiswas 35 percent more food pails than itproduced during that same period in theprevious year. Moreover, the plaintiffestimated that the fire prevented it fromproducing 84,568,000 more pails than itactually produced during the relevantperiod. Questioning the plaintiff’s figures,the court stated, “Despite plaintiff'scalculation of lost profits, I find thatplaintiff has failed to show that thisalleged 84,568,000 pail shortfall, even ifit was caused by the fire, caused any lossof income.” 63 The court continued, “Thus,even if plaintiff had produced the pails,nobody was standing in line to buy them.There is no evidence that plaintiff wasunable to produce food pails in sufficientquantity to meet its customers'demands.” 64 The court held that given thecomplete absence of supporting evidencein favor of the plaintiff the court wasrequired to grant summary judgment tothe insurer.Business Interruption coverage canbe an important risk shifting option for acompany, however coverage remainsdependent upon a physical loss to theinsured. Coverage may not be applicableto a break in the supply chain where theinsured does not suffer a physical loss,63 Id. at 53.64 Id. at 54.
The Global Supply Chain Page 431but rather an integral supplied does,causing the insured to lose income.2. Contingent BusinessInterruption CoverageContingent business interruptioninsurance protects a company withincome that is contingent on the flow ofthe goods or services between the insuredand another business. The loss must becaused by damage to a separate businessentity’s property as a result of a coveredperil. Contingent business insurancecoverage insures against the insured’sloss resulting from damage to propertythat it does not own, operate or control.An important question to consider ineither Business Interruption or ContingentBusiness Interruption claims is the extentof time an insured can claim damages.This issue was analyzed in PennbarrCorp. v. Ins. Co. of N. America. 65 There,the insured sold electromechanicaltypewriters. The parent companycollected royalties on the sale andproduction of the typewriters. Theinsured’s subsidiaries included twowholly-owned subsidiaries in Hollandand Italy. The Italian companymanufactured all typewriters sold in theinsured’s North American market. TheHolland company produced typewritersfor sale in the insured’s other markets.Both foreign subsidiaries were listed inthe policy as “contributing properties.” 66The policy, in pertinent part, provided,II. COVERAGE 1. Subject to allof its provisions and stipulations,65 976 F.2d 145 (3d Cir. 1992).66 Id. at 147.this policy covers only againstloss resulting directly fromnecessary interruption ofbusiness conducted by/or throughthe insureds' U.S. salesoperations caused by damage toor destruction of any of the realor personal property (includingfinished stock) hereinafterdescribed and referred to ascontributing properties (and/ orarising out of inability of onecontributing property to producedue to destruction/damage/loss toor at another contributingproperty) by the perils insuredagainst by the terms of thispolicy which wholly or partiallyprevents the delivery of materials(including finished stock) to theinsured or to others for theaccount of the insured and resultsdirectly in the necessaryinterruption of the insureds'business.The insured asserted a businessinterruption loss related to twoearthquakes in Italy in November 1980and January 1981. The earthquakesdamaged the Italian subsidiary andproduction ceased for a period of timeafter each earthquake. The insured’s U.S.companies and the foreign subsidiaries allfiled for bankruptcy between March andNovember of 1981. After the bankruptcyof the foreign subsidiaries, the insuredwas not able to locate alternate typewriterproduction facilities. As a result, theinsured “went into a passive marketingmode in an effort to stretch its inventoryuntil it could switch to an alternative
Page 4 and 5: Page 380advanced in the world, yet
Page 6 and 7: Page 3822013 midyear MeetingFebruar
Page 8 and 9: Page 384Defense Counsel JournalBoar
Page 10 and 11: Page 386Calendarof MeetingsMidyear
Page 12 and 13: Page 388 DEFENSE COUNSEL JOURNAL-Oc
Page 36 and 37: The Global Supply Chain: Understand
Page 62 and 63: Fending off the Use of a Rule 12(f)
Page 78 and 79: Predictability in Punitive Damages:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 480 DEFENSE COUNSEL JOURNAL-Oc
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
CONNINGConning theIADC NewslettersI
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Newsletters Page 494TEXAS STATE COU
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136:
U.S. Postal Service Statement of Ow
show all

Defense Counsel Journal - International Association of Defense ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?