Windsor Food Quality v. Underwriters of Lloyds etc. (2015) · DecisionDepot
Windsor Food Quality v. Underwriters of Lloyds etc.
California Court of Appeal Mar 3, 2015 No. E058324Published
Filed 2/6/15; pub. order 3/3/15 (see end of opn.)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
WINDSOR FOOD QUALITY COMPANY, LTD., E058324 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super.Ct.No. CIVRS905013) v. OPINION THE UNDERWRITERS OF LLOYDS OF LONDON et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Keith D. Davis,
Judge. Affirmed.
Shernoff Bidart Echeverria Bentley, Michael J. Bidart, Ricardo Echeverria, Steven
Messner; The Ehrlich Law Firm and Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Hamrick & Evans, A. Raymond Hamrick, III and Douglas K. Lackey for
Defendants and Respondents.
1
I
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff and appellant Windsor Food Quality Company, Ltd. (Windsor)
manufactured Jose Ole frozen food products, using ground beef supplied by
Westland/Hallmark Meat Company (Westland). In 2008, after a voluntary United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) recall of Westland beef, Windsor made a claim under
its Contamination Products Insurance policy,1 issued by defendants and respondents—
QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited and Underwriters of Lloyds, London (Lloyds). After
Lloyds denied coverage on various grounds, Windsor sued for breach of contract and bad
faith. The trial court granted Lloyds’s summary judgment motion, finding no triable
Tampering” means “the actual or threatened intentional, malicious and illegal alteration
or adulteration of the Insured[’s] Products whether in conjunction with a Product
Extortion Demand or not so as to give the Insured or consumers reasonable cause to
4
consider the Insured Products unfit or dangerous for their intended use.”2 On July 7,
2008, based on section 5.1, Lloyds denied Windsor’s claim for “Accidental Product
Contamination,” which “would lead to or has led to bodily injury, sickness, or disease of
any person, animal or livestock physically manifesting itself within 120 days of its
consumption or use.” It is not disputed that there was no actual injury to consumers from
Westland beef within 120 days.
2. Summary Judgment Motion
The parties identified two sets of material facts in their combined separate
statements. We summarize the facts, determining whether any material facts are
effectively disputed by Windsor.
The parties concur as to Lloyds’s description of the USDA’s comprehensive
testing and recall procedures and Lloyds’s explanations of CJD and BSE, including the
declaration of Dr. Richard T, Johnson, a neurologist and an expert on CJD. Dr. Johnson
explained the average incubation period for CJD in human is at least 10 years and
“[t]here is no evidence that manifestation of such illness will occur within a period of 120
days of consumption of BSE contaminated beef products.” There were no reports or
evidence of anyone becoming ill from ingesting Windsor’s products.
The USDA Class II voluntary recall was based on “‘a health hazard situation
where there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences.’” The USDA stated
2 Section 5.13, which is not at issue in this appeal, provides that “Product Extortion Demand” means “any threat or connected series of threats received by the Insured to commit Malicious Product Tampering for the purpose of soliciting money, securities or property.”
5
the recall was about failure to comply with FSIS regulations and “was not about food
safety” and “really not a health-related issue.” In particular, the recall was caused by
Westland’s failure to initiate USDA inspections of downer cattle. Windsor attempted to
dispute these assertions by describing them as Lloyds’s attempt “‘publicly [to] downplay
the recall’s significance.’” Without identifying any evidence, Windsor contends that, if
there had not been a health risk, then the USDA would have declared a Class III recall,
not a Class II recall. Windsor submitted additional facts about BSE and CJD, which
Lloyds countered were irrelevant, inaccurate, or not disputed.
As fact No. 51, Lloyds asserted, “‘[t]here was no intentional and malicious
adulteration of the products of Windsor Foods[.’]” As evidence, Lloyds cited the
testimony of two witnesses—Windsor employees, Michael Cramer and Manuel
Martinez—that they had no information about intentional or malicious contamination or
extortion involving Windsor’s products. Windsor responded that Lloyds was not
presenting a fact but arguing a legal conclusion. Lloyds objected to the relevance and
admissibility of evidence submitted by Windsor to establish that “rogue employees” had
contaminated Westland’s ground beef. In a videotape recording, two Westland
employees were shown pushing downer cows with a forklift, shocking them with an
electric prod, and spraying them with water to get them on their feet. The men were
charged with felony animal cruelty.
As fact No. 52, Lloyds asserted that Windsor had been advised by an industry
expert that its claim would not be covered under the insurance policy. Lloyds cited email
communications exchanged between Cramer, Martinez, Stanley Smith, and an insurance
6
consultant, Robert Garfield. Windsor objected on the grounds of hearsay, relevance, and
foundation and argued that Garfield’s opinion “involved the general sentiments of the
insurance industry about the legions of claims that affected companies were making.”
Finally, Lloyd responded to Windsor’s various arguments—labeled as facts—about
denial of coverage under the insurance policy as irrelevant, inaccurate, or not disputed.
3. The Summary Judgment Motion
In its order granting summary judgment to Lloyds, the trial court sustained
Windsor’s objections to the evidence Lloyds had submitted about the emails in support of
fact No. 52. Nevertheless, the trial court found there were no triable issues of any
material fact. The court cited the uncontroverted medical evidence by Dr. Johnson that
there was no public health risk of CJD or BSE and the court found there was no evidence
to establish tampering with an insured product. Additionally, the court found the recalled
products were not an “Insured Product” under section 5.7 of the policy and Lloyds had
acted reasonably in denying coverage.
III
DISCUSSION
1. Standard of Review
Summary judgment was properly granted in this case if there were no triable
issues of material fact and Lloyds was entitled to judgment as a matter of law: “The
purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut
through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations,
7
trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute. [Citation.]” (Aguilar v. Atlantic
Our conclusions in this case are supported by various federal authorities. In The
Limited, Inc. v. Cigna Ins. Co. (E.D. Pa. 2001) 228 F. Supp. 2d 574, 580, the district
court concluded that a Product Tampering & Accidental Contamination Insurance Policy
13
indicated that “the parties intended to have coverage for only those specific instances of
product tampering and accidental contamination, not for product recalls in general . . . .”
In Ruiz Food Products, Inc. v. Catlin Underwriting U.S., Inc., No. 1:11-CV-00889-BAM,
2012 WL 4050001, at page 6 (E.D. Cal.2012), the district court agreed: “Recalls
generally, even if related to a belief that a product has been contaminated, does not
qualify as a contamination under an accidental contamination policy.” In Hot Stuff
Foods, supra,771 F.3d at pages 1075-1076, the Eight Circuit recognized that
contamination products insurance and recall insurance afford different kinds of coverage:
“At least some general commercial liability policies exclude losses incurred because of a
recall. [Citation.] The need to recall contaminated or adulterated product is a recognized
risk of doing business in the heavily regulated food industry. Thus, the exclusion
compels food companies such as Hot Stuff to purchase policies separately insuring
against this risk. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] This . . . brings into focus why insurers and food industry
insureds would agree to limit Accidental Product Contamination coverage to recall
incidents in which consumption of the contaminated or mislabeled product ‘resulted, or
may likely result’ in physical symptoms of bodily injury, sickness or disease or death of
any person. As other courts to consider this coverage have concluded, this ‘is not a recall
insurance policy.’ Ruiz, 2012 WL 4050001, at [10]; see The Limited, 228 F.Supp.2d at
580.”
14
IV
DISPOSITION
The contamination products insurance policy issued by Lloyds did not cover
Windsor’s losses caused by the voluntary recall of Westland’s ground beef. We affirm
the summary judgment. Lloyds, the prevailing party, shall recover its costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
I concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
15
King, J., Dissenting.
As the moving party, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating there is no
potential for coverage under the terms of its policy. (See Powerine Oil Co., Inc. v.
Superior Court (2005) 37 Cal.4th 377, 390 [defendant and moving party/nonparticipating
insurer failed to meet its burden of showing that no potential for indemnity existed under
terms of its policy on motion for summary adjudication]; see also Standard Fire Ins. Co.
v. Spectrum Community Assn. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1124 [plaintiff and moving
party insurer failed to meet its burden of showing there was no potential for coverage
under the terms of its policy on motion for summary judgment]; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,
subd. (p)(2).)1
We independently review a trial court’s interpretation of the terms of an insurance
contract, pursuant to well-settled rules of contract interpretation. (E.M.M.I. Inc. v. Zurich
American Ins. Co. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 465, 470 (E.M.M.I.).)
“‘The fundamental rules of contract interpretation are based on the premise that
the interpretation of a contract must give effect to the “mutual intention” of the parties.
1 At trial, the plaintiff insured has the burden of demonstrating the potential for coverage under the terms of the policy. (Aydin Corp. v. First State Ins. Co. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1183, 1188.) Relying on Central Nat. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 926, 932-933, both defendant and respondent, the Underwriters of Lloyds of London, and the majority state that on a motion for summary judgment the burden rests with the nonmoving plaintiff (insured) to prove that “‘“an event is a claim within the scope of the basic coverage.”’” I disagree; this statement runs counter to basic summary judgment law. Within the context of a summary judgment motion wherein the insurer is moving for summary judgment on the basis that there is no coverage, I believe the burden rests with the moving party (insurer) to demonstrate that there is no potential for coverage. (Powerine Oil Co., Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 390.)
1
“Under statutory rules of contract interpretation, the mutual intention of the parties at the
time the contract is formed governs interpretation. [Citation.] Such intent is to be
inferred, if possible, solely from the written provisions of the contract. [Citation.] The
‘clear and explicit’ meaning of these provisions, interpreted in their ‘ordinary and popular
sense,’ unless ‘used by the parties in a technical sense or a special meaning is given to
them by usage’ [citation], controls judicial interpretation. [Citation.]”’ [Citation.]”
(E.M.M.I., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 470.) “Thus, if the meaning a layperson would ascribe
to contract language is not ambiguous, we apply that meaning. [Citations.]” (AIU Ins.
Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 807, 822.) “If possible, the court should give
effect to every provision. [Citations.] An interpretation which renders part of the
[contract] to be surplusage should be avoided. [Citations.]” (National City Police
Officers’ Assn. v. City of National City (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1274, 1279.)
“A policy provision is ambiguous when it is susceptible to two or more reasonable
constructions. [Citation.] Language in an insurance policy is ‘interpreted as a whole, and
in the circumstances of the case, and cannot be found to be ambiguous in the abstract.’
[Citation.] ‘The proper question is whether the [provision or] word is ambiguous in the
context of this policy and the circumstances of this case. [Citation.]’” (E.M.M.I., supra,
32 Cal.4th at p. 470.) “In determining whether an ambiguity exists, a court should
consider not only the face of the contract but also any extrinsic evidence that supports a
reasonable interpretation. [Citation.]” (American Alternative Ins. Corp. v. Superior
Court (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1239, 1246.)
2
“Ambiguity ‘“‘is resolved by interpreting the ambiguous provisions in the sense
the [insurer] believed the [insured] understood them at the time of formation. [Citation.]
If application of this rule does not eliminate the ambiguity, ambiguous language is
construed against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist. [Citation.]’ ‘This rule,
as applied to a promise of coverage in an insurance policy, protects not the subjective
beliefs of the insurer but, rather, “the objectively reasonable expectations of the
insured.”’” [Citation.] “Any ambiguous terms are resolved in the insureds’ favor,
consistent with the insureds’ reasonable expectations.”’ [Citation.]” (E.M.M.I., supra,
32 Cal.4th at pp. 470-471.)
The policy provisions at the heart of the dispute are 5.7 and 5.10.
“5.7 ‘Insured Products’ shall mean all products including their ingredients and
components once incorporated therein of the Insured that are in production or have been
manufactured, packaged or distributed by or to the order of the Insured including any
new products which QBE has accepted in writing as a new product under Clause 4.5.”
“5.10 ‘Malicious Product Tampering’ shall mean the actual or threatened
intentional, malicious and illegal alteration or adulteration of the Insureds Products
whether in conjunction with a Product Extortion Demand or not so as to give the
Insured or consumers reasonable cause to consider the Insured Products unfit or
dangerous for their intended use.”
The majority believes these provisions are clear and that no ambiguity exists. As
stated by the majority: “Lloyds’s policy provides coverage for insured products and an
3
insured event. An insured event involves product contamination or tampering. An
‘Insured Product’ means ‘all products including their ingredients and components once
incorporated therein of the Insured that are in production or have been manufactured,
packaged or distributed by or to the order of the Insured . . . .’ In plainer language,
[plaintiff and appellant Windsor Food Quality Company, Ltd.] must show there was
contamination or tampering with its product during or after manufacture, not before
Windsor began the process.” (Maj. opn. ante, at pp. 11-12.) I believe this is incorrect.
I do not believe the majority is properly construing the policy. In my mind, the
policy does not clearly and explicitly state what the majority says it does. Within the
context of the present matter, the more reasonable reading of the policy is that the
product, and all of its ingredients, are insured for adulteration regardless of when the
adulteration occurs. Thus to the extent there are two reasonable interpretations, the
policy is ambiguous and should be construed against the insurer; 2 the summary judgment
should be denied.
Looking first to clause 5.7, it provides: “‘Insured Products’ shall mean all
products including their ingredients and components once incorporated therein of the
Insured that are in production or have been manufactured, packaged or distributed by or
to the order of the Insured including any new products which QBE has accepted in
writing as a new product under Clause 4.5.”
2 It is speculative to assess what the insurer believed the insured understood as to the scope of the coverage in that the present record does not contain any extrinsic evidence relevant thereto.
4
In interpreting this clause, the majority has focused on the words “once
incorporated therein,” and concluded that this provision can be interpreted in only one
way—“Windsor must show there was contamination or tampering with its product during
or after manufacture, not before Windsor began the process.” (Maj. opn. ante, at pp. 11-
12.) This interpretation is internally inconsistent.
By stressing the words “once incorporated therein,” the majority is interpreting the
above clause as indicating that adulteration of the ingredient must occur after the
ingredient has become part of the product (i.e., the meat ingredient must be adulterated
“once incorporated into” the burrito). I would suggest that if we accept this interpretation
of when the ingredient must be adulterated, a large part of the production process would
not be covered. While I am not familiar with the production of frozen burritos, I would
think that the various ingredients of the burrito are at some point in time separate from
each other or have been blended together without yet being placed into the tortilla. By
adopting the majority’s emphasis on “once incorporated therein,” the meat or any other
ingredient could be tampered with during the production process but before being
“incorporated” into the burrito; as such, the adulteration would not be a covered loss.
(The adulteration of the meat occurring before it was “incorporated therein.”) As a result,
the “once incorporated therein” language as interpreted by the majority is in conflict with
the other portion of the majority’s conclusion—that the tampering is covered if it occurs
“during . . . manufacture.” (Maj. opn. ante, at p. 12.)
5
If the ingredients have to be “incorporated therein” before the adulteration is
covered, by definition adulteration that occurs “during” the production process is not
covered because the ingredient has yet to be incorporated therein. The majority’s dual
interpretations are mutually exclusive and not a reasonable reading of the provisions.3
Further, if we are to accept the general premise of the majority that coverage exists
only for adulteration “during or after the manufacture,” one would have to conclude that
the majority is not only reading out of clause 5.7, “including their ingredients and
components once incorporated therein” (because as previously explained adulteration can
occur during the manufacturing process yet before the ingredient has been incorporated
therein), but also reading into clause 5.10, “occurring during production, manufacturing,
packaging or distribution.” To reach the majority’s interpretation of the words “once
incorporated therein” and that the adulteration must occur during or after the
manufacturing process, the two clauses by necessity would have to read as follows:
“5.7 ‘Insured Products’ shall mean all products including their ingredients and
components once incorporated therein of the Insured that are in production or have been
manufactured, packaged or distributed by or to the order of the Insured including any
new products which QBE has accepted in writing as a new product under Clause 4.5.”
“5.10 ‘Malicious Product Tampering’ shall mean the actual or threatened
intentional, malicious and illegal alteration or adulteration of the Insureds Products
3 In looking at the mutual intention of the parties, I do not think the parties intended not to have covered adulteration during production.
6
[during production, manufacturing, packaging or distribution] whether in conjunction
with a Product Extortion Demand or not so as to give the Insured or consumers
reasonable cause to consider the Insured Products unfit or dangerous for their intended
use.”
It is only after these modifications are made, can the policy be plainly interpreted
as the majority wishes.
Lastly, even language that may be plain and clear, as suggested by the majority,
may be found as ambiguous when read in the context of the policy and the circumstances
of the case. Here, the insured is Windsor Quality Food Company, Ltd., along with
various named subsidiaries and divisions. As set forth in defendant’s undisputed
statement of facts, No. 2, “[p]laintiff is a leading manufacturer and marketer of frozen
ethnic foods, appetizers and other products [sic] food products purchased by consumers.”
Within the context of the policy and the circumstances of the case, each party to the
insuring agreement should well recognize that the insured produces and manufactures
frozen foods. Perhaps with some exceptions, frozen ethnic foods and appetizers are
nothing more than the compilation of various ingredients resulting in the product. In the
case of a burrito, these ingredients end up resulting in a product where the individual
ingredients are, in essence, inseparable; that is, it would be impossible to tamper with an
ingredient after its incorporation into the product without tampering with the product as a
whole. Thus, to conclude as does the majority, that the tampering with an ingredient
7
must occur after the ingredient is “incorporated therein,” makes no sense. If such was the
case, the policy need only provide for tampering with the “product.”
Simply stated, the phrase “once incorporated therein” found in clause 5.7, does not
modify when the tampering must occur, but rather when the adulterated ingredient
becomes covered. Clause 5.10 thereafter provides that the “Insured Product” must be
“maliciously and illegal[ly] alter[ed] or adulterat[ed].” Clause 5.10 does not provide a
time constraint as to when the alteration or adulteration must occur. The adulteration of
the ingredient can occur before it is incorporated into the product, but only becomes
covered once it is incorporated into the product.
Taken together and reasonably read as a whole, the policy covers the present
adulteration.
The majority relies a number of cases which I believe are not applicable. It first
F.Supp.2d 329, 335-336, for the proposition that “[i]n order for a frozen burrito to qualify
as an insured product, there must have been contamination or tampering during
production, manufacture, packaging, or distribution—not because one of its ingredients
supplied by a third party was adulterated.” (Maj. opn. ante, at p. 12.) In Caudill, the
plaintiff produced peanut products. Just as the meat here was tampered with prior to
arriving at plaintiff’s plant, the peanuts in Caudill were contaminated before arriving at
the plaintiff’s plant. The relevant policy provision in Caudill provided: “ACCIDENTAL
PRODUCT CONTAMINATION [is]: [¶] (1) any accidental or unintentional
8
contamination, . . . during the manufacture, blending, mixing, compounding, . . . of the
Named Insured’s Products . . . .” (Id. at p. 333, italics added.) In finding no coverage,
the court indicated: “After reviewing the language of the Policy, the Court finds that the
Peanut Claim is not covered. The Court agrees that the impairment of the peanuts did not
occur ‘during the manufacture, blending, mixing, compounding, packaging, . . . of the
Named Insured’s PRODUCTS[.]’” (Id. at pp. 335-336.) Our case is unlike Caudill.
There, coverage was limited to contamination “during” the manufacturing process. Here,
the word “during” is not used in any of the insuring clauses. Thus, I do not believe
Caudill stands for the proposition cited by the majority.
Next, the majority relies on The Limited, Inc. v. Cigna Ins. Co. (E.D. Pa. 2001)
228 F.Supp.2d 574, 580, for the point that the Product Tampering & Accidental
Contamination Insurance Policy covers only instances of accidental contamination and
product tampering and does not provide for product recalls in general. (Maj. opn. ante, at
p. 13.) I note initially that regardless of whether the present policy is a “recall policy,”
clause 1.3, subdivision (b) covers “[t]he reasonable and necessary costs and expenses of
recall or withdrawal of Insured Products . . . .” Further, in The Limited, Inc., there was
no contamination or product tampering. The issue was a defective canister into which the
product had been placed; there was no evidence that the product or the canister had been
contaminated or adulterated. There was merely a defective cap on the canister, a risk not
covered by the policy. (Id. at p. 580.)
9
The majority relies on Ruiz Food Products, Inc. v. Catlin Underwriting U.S., Inc.
(E.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2012, No. 1:11-CV-00889-BAM) 2012 WL 4050001, at page [6] for
the notion that: “Recalls generally, even if related to a belief that a product has been
contaminated, does not qualify as a contamination under an accidental contamination
policy.” (Maj. opn. ante, at p. 13.) Ruiz’s discussion and holding are inapplicable to the
present facts. There, the issue was whether an ingredient in a beef spice mix which was
produced by a downstream supplier, was contaminated. While some of the beef spice
mix supplied to other manufacturers was contaminated, the beef spice mix supplied to
Ruiz tested as being not contaminated. As indicated by the court, “[o]nly one lot of
Basic’s HVP tested positive for Salmonella, and that particular lot was not sent to
Superior, and thus, did not reach Ruiz.” (Id. at p. [2].) In addressing the insurance policy,
the court indicated that “accidental contamination” is “‘any accidental or unintentional
contamination . . . provided that the use or consumption of Insured product(s): [¶] . . .
Has resulted in or would result in clearly identifiable internal or external physical
symptoms of bodily injury . . . .” (Id. at pp. [2]-[3].) The court concluded by holding that
because Ruiz’s product was not actually contaminated it would not result in bodily injury
and therefore was not covered. In the present case, the policy does not require that the
adulteration “result in clearly identifiable internal . . . physical symptoms of bodily
injury.” (Id. at p. [14].)
In sum, I do not believe the relevant policy provisions have the clear and explicit
meaning that is placed upon them by the majority. When viewing the circumstances of
10
the case, and clauses 5.7 and 5.10 when read together, the policy provides coverage for
adulteration of those individual ingredients incorporated into the product, with no time
constraints as to when the ingredient must be adulterated.
As to defendant’s further arguments, I believe triable issues of fact exist as to
whether the adulteration was malicious and illegal, as well as whether the adulteration
was such as would “give the Insured or consumers reasonable cause to consider the
Insured Products unfit or dangerous for their intended use.” There is evidence in the
record that there was a Class II recall, which means “a health hazard situation where there
is a remote probability of adverse health consequences.” The Food Safety and Inspection
Service designated the beef as unfit for human consumption and plaintiff was requested
by the United States Department of Agriculture to comply with the requirements for the
product recall. Further, there was no evidence submitted by defendant that the
adulteration of the meat was not illegal and was not done with conscious disregard for the
health and safety of others.
All told, I believe triable issues of material fact remain as to whether coverage
exists for plaintiff’s losses.
KING J.
11
Filed 3/3/15
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
WINDSOR FOOD QUALITY E058324 COMPANY, LTD., (Super.Ct.No. CIVRS905013) Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ORDER
THE UNDERWRITERS OF LLOYDS OF LONDON et al.
Defendants and Respondents.
IT IS ORDERED that the February 19, 2015, request for publication of the opinion filed February 6, 2015, is GRANTED. The opinion meets the standard for publication as specified in California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).
CODRINGTON J.
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
KING J.
See attached list
1
MAILING LIST FOR CASE: E058324 Windsor Food Quality Company, LTD. v. The Underwriters of Lloyds of London et al.
Superior Court Clerk San Bernardino County 247 West Third Street San Bernardino, CA 92415
Michael J. Bidart Shernoff Bidart Echeverria Bentley LLP 600 South Indian Hill Blvd. Claremont, CA 91711
Jeffrey I. Ehrlich The Ehrlich Law Firm 16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 610 Encino, CA 91436
A. Raymond Hamrick Hamrick & Evans, LLP 111 Universal Hollywood Drive Suite 2200 Universal City, CA 91608
2
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the insurance policy did not cover the recall of the plaintiff's products because the ground beef ingredient was not an "Insured Product" under the policy and no "Insured Event" occurred. The court further found no evidence of malicious tampering or accidental contamination resulting in injury as required by the policy terms.
Issues
Whether the insurance policy covers losses arising from a voluntary product recall involving an ingredient supplied by a third party.
Whether the plaintiff's products met the policy definition of "Insured Products" when the alleged contamination occurred in a third-party ingredient.
Whether the insurer acted in bad faith in denying the insurance claim.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude Windsor cannot claim coverage for the recall of Westland’s ground beef.”
“The contamination products insurance policy issued by Lloyds did not cover Windsor’s losses caused by the voluntary recall of Westland’s ground beef.”
“In plainer language, Windsor must show there was contamination or tampering with its product during or after manufacture, not before Windsor began the process.”