Actually, the distributors might get coverage under Peanut’s GL policy while Peanut Corp itself may not.
All Hartford GL policies contain a pretty broad extension of coverage for subs including distributors. A case might be made that Peanuts clearly intentional act of shipping tainted food obviates coverage for them but not for the distributors. This has happened before to Hartford.
On a related note: remember about 3 years ago there was a case in China where a high up food production guy knowingly sold a bunch of bad food that sickened and killed people around the globe. The Chinese government gave him a quick trial and he was executed by hanging.
We could learn a lesson from that. This moron who said “yes” to shipping that crap might not have approved it if he knew his neck might get stretched.
And yes, this was a poorly written article. IJ, did you have a rookie on this?
1. Left out a lot of important information, and
2. Does not understand how products liability insurance works, and covers not only end use consumers, but the product’s distributors.
Someone help me explain why the $7million would not go toward Bodily injury claims from the product? Why would it be used for dependant property coverage (from what I can tell from the artical?
It’s more than likely a product recall coverage. It sounds like Hartford has at 12m GL policy from the article. I would think Hartford could decline coverage for the intenional illegal act of the owner who knowingly sold/distributed a contaminated product.
Based upon the article, the claims are not product recall claims. They are third party BI claims being brought against the peanut processor.If this is the case, it would be a GL claim. Whether or not it is a covered GL claim is the next question.
Albeit a poorly written article – you have the AP to thank – Anyone of you who made the comments on the IJ writing staff take note of the little blurb at the bottom:
Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Der.. Go to the AP article – it is a direct copy of the published report that was released by an independent news agency – IJ isn’t much better – but give credit where credit is due
No, I expect any article published by Ins J
to be complete and accurate. The fact that they were to lazy or … to make a few phone calls and write their own article is a black mark against them.
they should not be publishing garbage, regardless of who wrote it.
Invoking the intentional act exclusion is dicey at best even under the most favorable facts. A judge will be most reluctant to exclude coverage. Can Hartford prove intent to harm? I doubt it. In the meantime Hartford most likely has a duty to defend. In the end Hartford will probably pay policy limits plus huge defense costs. If harm has occurred over multiple policy terms Hartford could be on the hook for multiple policy limits. This all assumes the coverage is occurrence with supplementary payments in addition to the limits.
Hey Hartford’s Scr@#ed, you could be write. FYI Hartford’s coverage is definitely occurrence with defense outside.
The CEO of this place, though, did get caught somehow admitting that he knew that he was shipping tainted stuff. Sounds like an intentional act to me but then again the judge will probably not want to remove the primary source of compensation for victims, just like what happened with E2 in Rhode Island.
Many businesses and carriers ended up paying on that even though their products only burned in the fire and did not start it.
I highly recommend an article that IJ printed inside their hardcopy/downloadable March 9, 2009 issue regarding this topic and Hartford’s response to it. The daily blurbs that we see here don’t always include all the articles they publish.
Wouldn’t this fall under products liability coverage and not GL?
Products liability is one section of the general liability policy. It would have to be excluded in that policy for coverage to not apply.
And of course, deliberate injury is excluded unless in defense of property or self.
Actually, the distributors might get coverage under Peanut’s GL policy while Peanut Corp itself may not.
All Hartford GL policies contain a pretty broad extension of coverage for subs including distributors. A case might be made that Peanuts clearly intentional act of shipping tainted food obviates coverage for them but not for the distributors. This has happened before to Hartford.
On a related note: remember about 3 years ago there was a case in China where a high up food production guy knowingly sold a bunch of bad food that sickened and killed people around the globe. The Chinese government gave him a quick trial and he was executed by hanging.
We could learn a lesson from that. This moron who said “yes” to shipping that crap might not have approved it if he knew his neck might get stretched.
And yes, this was a poorly written article. IJ, did you have a rookie on this?
whoever wrote this article:
1. Left out a lot of important information, and
2. Does not understand how products liability insurance works, and covers not only end use consumers, but the product’s distributors.
Shameful for an insurance publication.
Someone help me explain why the $7million would not go toward Bodily injury claims from the product? Why would it be used for dependant property coverage (from what I can tell from the artical?
This doesn’t make sence. Someone help me.
It’s more than likely a product recall coverage. It sounds like Hartford has at 12m GL policy from the article. I would think Hartford could decline coverage for the intenional illegal act of the owner who knowingly sold/distributed a contaminated product.
Based upon the article, the claims are not product recall claims. They are third party BI claims being brought against the peanut processor.If this is the case, it would be a GL claim. Whether or not it is a covered GL claim is the next question.
This might be a great article on why vendors may want to Insure their A/R’s?
Wow …
Steve
http://www.4morereferrals.com
Albeit a poorly written article – you have the AP to thank – Anyone of you who made the comments on the IJ writing staff take note of the little blurb at the bottom:
Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Der.. Go to the AP article – it is a direct copy of the published report that was released by an independent news agency – IJ isn’t much better – but give credit where credit is due
No, I expect any article published by Ins J
to be complete and accurate. The fact that they were to lazy or … to make a few phone calls and write their own article is a black mark against them.
they should not be publishing garbage, regardless of who wrote it.
Invoking the intentional act exclusion is dicey at best even under the most favorable facts. A judge will be most reluctant to exclude coverage. Can Hartford prove intent to harm? I doubt it. In the meantime Hartford most likely has a duty to defend. In the end Hartford will probably pay policy limits plus huge defense costs. If harm has occurred over multiple policy terms Hartford could be on the hook for multiple policy limits. This all assumes the coverage is occurrence with supplementary payments in addition to the limits.
Hey Hartford’s Scr@#ed, you could be write. FYI Hartford’s coverage is definitely occurrence with defense outside.
The CEO of this place, though, did get caught somehow admitting that he knew that he was shipping tainted stuff. Sounds like an intentional act to me but then again the judge will probably not want to remove the primary source of compensation for victims, just like what happened with E2 in Rhode Island.
Many businesses and carriers ended up paying on that even though their products only burned in the fire and did not start it.
I highly recommend an article that IJ printed inside their hardcopy/downloadable March 9, 2009 issue regarding this topic and Hartford’s response to it. The daily blurbs that we see here don’t always include all the articles they publish.