(8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Minnesota law, March 11, 2005)
–Ruling: Supplier’s loss of electricity is not direct physical loss.
Under Minnesota law, a power substation that was damaged by an earthquake was not a “supplier of goods and/or services” within the meaning of business interruption coverage, even though the insured was forced to air freight orders from Taiwan to the United States to meet seasonal needs after earthquake damage deprived Taiwanese suppliers of electricity. The court found that the power substation supplied no goods to the insured, either directly or indirectly. As a result, the suppliers’ inability to function after loss of power did not constitute “direct physical loss or damage” to goods.
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
One Battle After Another: What TPLF Victory in One State Means for Others
At-Bay to Be Acquired by Munich Re for $575 Million
Tornado Alley’s on the Move and Creating New Risk Concerns, Modeler Says
Lawsuit Alleges TWIA Fraudulently Reduced Claim Estimates From Hurricane Beryl 


