(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.
To Carriers’ Relief: New Florida Rule Won’t Count Mediation Requests as Complaints
Ben & Jerry’s Co-Founder Says Brand Being ‘Destroyed’ by Magnum
Hacking Group Claims Major Hack of Novo Nordisk and Attempted $25M Extortion
Ship Owner Seeks Dismissal of Economic Loss Claims From Baltimore Bridge Collapse 


