The Law

Legal Spotlight

A look at the latest decisions impacting the industry.
By: | April 7, 2017 • 4 min read

Court Limited Extra Expenses

In 2012, Welspun Tubular, which manufactures pipes in Little Rock, Ark., was contracted by Enterprise Products Partners to manufacture 180 metric tons of pipe for a pipeline from Cushing, Okla., to Houston, Texas.

Production was supposed to commence on July 25, 2012, with final delivery on Aug. 31, 2013, but a fire damaged the facility on July 14, 2012. Welspun and Enterprise agreed that a portion of the production would shift to Welspun Tradings, an affiliated company in India.

Welspun had a commercial insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., which covered property damage, loss of business income and extra expenses at the Little Rock facility. A forensic accountant calculated the lost business income at $28 million, direct mitigation expenses of $13.4 million and nearly $500,000 in indirect overhead costs.

Liberty paid about $415,000 as “extra expenses” in reimbursement of a portion of the direct costs, leaving unpaid $13 million, as well as nearly $500,000 in indirect overhead costs.

A partial settlement was reached, and Liberty Mutual paid Welspun $22.3 million in lost business income and $1 million for “extra expenses,” to cover direct costs, based on a $1 million policy limit.

Because they disputed the amount owed Welspun for mitigation expenses — which Welspun claimed were $13.5 million to shift production to India so the entire order was not lost — both parties filed suit.

A U.S. District Court judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled on Feb. 2 that the insurer did not have to “pay more than it would have paid had the business loss occurred rather than been averted.”

He granted Liberty Mutual’s request to dismiss the case.

Scorecard: The insurance company does not have to pay Welspun $13.5 million.

Takeaway: The issue revolved around the amount the insurer would have paid if Welspun had been unable to make up the lost production.

Professional Services Not Included in Coverage

On April 22, David McBride was using a cutting torch to remove bolts from a “digester lid” as part of a project to upgrade a wastewater treatment plant in Dexter, Mich.

Sparks from the torch ignited methane gas inside the tank and caused an explosion that injured McBride and killed Michael Koch, a pipefitter.

Advertisement




After the accident, McBride and the estate of Koch filed a wrongful death action against Orchard Hiltz & McCliment (OHM), the engineering and architecture firm that designed the upgrade and was project engineer for the construction.

XL Specialty Insurance Co., which had issued professional liability coverage to OHM, defended it in the lawsuits.

OHM, which was listed as an additional insured on the policies of two contractors involved in the project, filed a lawsuit seeking pro rata defense and indemnification from those insurance companies: Phoenix Insurance Co. (which provided commercial general liability coverage to A.Z. Shmina, the project’s general contractor) and Federated Mutual Insurance Co., (which provided CGL coverage to Platinum Mechanical — the employer of Koch. Platinum subcontracted with Regal Rigging & Demolition — the employer of McBride.)

Both Phoenix’s and Federated’s policies excluded professional services, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed OHM’s suit.

On appeal to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, OHM argued the professional services exclusion did not apply because “some of the underlying allegations implicate ‘general project operations and work place safety’,” which OHM was not responsible for.

The appeals court said the policies issued by Phoenix and Federated “were never intended to cover professional negligence claims.”

“The substance of the underlying claims is that OHM is liable for failing to properly plan for, and take preventative measures to ensure, the safe removal of the digester tank lids it required as part of the overall treatment plant upgrade project,” according to the court’s opinion on Jan. 20.

Scorecard: The CGL carriers will not have to contribute to indemnify or defend the engineering firm.

Takeaway: The failure to supervise worksite safety was part of the firm’s professional services.

Malicious Acts Not Covered

For several months in 2015, Catalent found softgel capsules in the wrong place at its manufacturing facility in France. One batch of capsules was found in another batch of product, and capsules were found on an empty shelf on the floor. Catalent believed the incidents were “deliberate, malicious acts,” as part of a plan to extort money.

Because of the misplacements, the French pharmaceutical regulatory agency closed the facility for five months, leading to a loss in excess of $10 million.

Catalent filed a business interruption claim with U.S. Specialty Insurance Co., which denied the claim. The insurer then sought court approval of that denial. Because Catalent never received a demand for money, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld that denial.

The court said the policy unambiguously required that any alteration of stock be combined with a threat “made specifically against the insured,” with a loss defined as money “surrendered by or on behalf of the insured as an extortion payment … .”

Scorecard: The insurance company does not have to pay $10 million for business interruption.

Takeaway: No coverage existed because there was no extortion money requested or paid.

Anne Freedman is managing editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Risk Management

The Profession

This senior risk manager values his role in helping Varian Medical Systems support research and technologies in the fight against cancer.
By: | September 12, 2017 • 5 min read

R&I: What was your first job?

When I was 15 years old I had a summer job working for the city of Plentywood, mowing grass in the parks and ballfields, emptying garbage cans, hauling waste to the dump, painting crosswalk lines.  A great job for a teenager but I thought getting a college degree and working in an air-conditioned office would be a good plan long term.

R&I: How did you come to work in risk management?

I was enrolled in the University of Montana as a general business student, and I wanted to declare a more specialized major during my sophomore year. I was working for my dad at his insurance agency over the summer, and taking new agent training coursework on property/casualty risks in my spare time, so I had an appreciation for insurance. My dad suggested I research risk management for a career, and I transferred sight unseen to the University of Georgia to enroll in their risk management program. I did an internship as a senior with the risk management department at Sulzer Medica, and they offered me a full time job.

R&I: What could the risk management community be doing a better job of?

Advertisement




We need to do a better job of saying yes. We tend to want to say no to many risks, but there are upside benefits to some risks. If we initiate a collaborative exercise with the risk owners — people who may have unique knowledge about that particular risk — and include a cross section of people from other corporate functions, you can do an effective job of taking the risk apart to analyze it, figure out a way to manage that exposure, and then reap the upside benefits while reducing the downside exposure. That can be done with new products and new service offerings, when there isn’t coverage available for a risk. It’s asking, is there anything we can do to reduce the risk without transferring it?

R&I: What emerging commercial risk most concerns you?

Cyber liability. There’s so much at stake and the bad guys are getting more resourceful every day. At Varian, our first approach is to try to make our systems and products more resilient, so we’re trying to direct resources to preventing it from happening in the first place. It’s a huge reputation risk if one of our products or systems were compromised, so we want to avoid that at all costs.

We need to do a better job of saying yes. We tend to want to say no to many risks, but there are upside benefits to some risks.

R&I: What insurance carrier do you have the highest opinion of?

I’ve worked with a number of great ones over the years. We’ve enjoyed a great property insurance relationship with Zurich. Their loss control services are very valuable to us. On the umbrella liability side, it’s been great partnering with companies like Swiss Re and Berkley Life Sciences because they’ve put in the time and effort to understand our unique risk exposures.

R&I: How much business do you do direct versus going through a broker?

One hundred percent through a broker. I view our broker as an extension of our risk management team. We benefit from each team member’s respective area of expertise and experience.

R&I: Is the contingent commission controversy overblown?

Advertisement




I think so. The brokers were kind of villainized by Spitzer. I think it’s fair for brokers and insurers to make a reasonable profit, and if a portion of their profit came from contingent commissions, I’m fine with that. But I do appreciate the transparency and disclosure that came out as a result of the fiasco.

R&I: Are you optimistic about the US economy or pessimistic and why?

David Collins, Senior Manager, Risk Management, Varian Medical Systems Inc.

While we might be doing fine here in the U.S. from an economic perspective, the Middle East is a mess, and we’re living with nuclear threat from North Korea. But hope springs eternal, so I’m cautiously optimistic. I’m hoping saner minds prevail and our leaders throughout the world work together to make things better.

R&I: Who is your mentor and why?

My Dad got me started down the insurance and risk path. I’ve also been fortunate to work for or with a number of University of Georgia alumni who’ve been mentors for me. I’ve worked side by side with Karen Epermanis, Michael Rousseau, and Elisha Finney. And I’ve worked with Daniel Dean in his capacity as a broker.

R&I: What have you accomplished that you are proudest of?

Advertisement




Raising my kids. I have a 15-year-old and 12-year-old, and they’re making mom and dad proud of the people they’re turning into.

On a professional level, a recent one would be the creation and implementation of our global travel risk program, which was a combined effort between security, travel and risk functions.

We have a huge team of service personnel around the world, traveling to customer sites to do maintenance and repair. We needed a way to track, monitor and communicate with them. We may need to make security arrangements or vet their lodging in some circumstances.

R&I: What do your friends and family think you do?

My 12-year-old son thought my job responsibilities could be summed up as a “professional worrier.” And that’s not too far off.

R&I: What about this work do you find the most fulfilling or rewarding?

Varian’s mission is to focus energy on saving lives. Proper administration of the risk function puts the company in a better position to financially support research that improves products and capabilities, helps to educate health care providers and support cancer care in general. It means more lives saved from a terrible disease. I’m proud to contribute toward that.

When you meet someone whose cancer has been successfully treated with one of our products, it’s a powerful reward.




Katie Siegel is an associate editor at Risk & Insurance®. She can be reached at [email protected]