Insurer’s Failed Subrogation Bid Has No Bearing on Merits of Policyholder’s Claim for Recall Damages
Time 2 Minute Read

A recent First Circuit ruling underscores that a well-negotiated insurance policy can cover claims for which state law has no remedy. In Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Mountaire Farms Inc., Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company insured AdvancePierre Foods Inc., a maker of ready-to-eat lunches and sandwiches. In 2015, a string of salmonella outbreaks were linked to chicken in AdvancePierre’s products, prompting AdvancePierre to recall more than 1.7 million pounds of chicken. The recall cost AdvancePierre over $10 million, which Starr covered under AdvancePierre’s product-contamination policy.

Invoking its subrogation rights, Starr sued AdvancePierre’s chicken supplier, Mountaire Farms Inc., for breach of warranty and strict product liability in Maine state court. After Mountaire removed the case and moved to dismiss, the district court dismissed Starr’s complaint, holding that Starr failed to plausibly allege that the raw chicken at issue was “defective” under Maine law.

On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that under Maine law, Starr’s breach-of-warranty and products-liability claims hinged on whether the recalled chicken was “defective.” Turning to Maine law, the court recognized that “raw chicken that contains salmonella that can be eliminated by proper cooking cannot be considered ‘defective.’” Since the recalled chicken contained a strand of salmonella that could in fact be eliminated through proper cooking, and since the complaint failed to allege any special reasons why proper cooking would not have eliminated the strand, the First Circuit held that the chicken was not defective. As a result, Starr could not state a claim and could not recover in subrogation for the amounts paid under its insurance policy.

This decision bears an important reminder for policyholders: Commercial policies can and typically should cover claims, even when those claims find no shelter in state law. As a corollary, it should be no defense to an insurer that the facts giving rise to the insurance claim do not give rise to an actionable claim at law or in equity. When negotiating policies, insureds should strive to obtain the broadest possible coverage. And when faced with a loss, policyholders should be guided by the terms of their coverage and not by the contours of state law, which often may be narrower or contain more onerous elements of proof.

  • Partner

    Mike is a Legal 500 and Chambers USA-ranked lawyer with more than 25 years of experience litigating insurance disputes and advising clients on insurance coverage matters.

    Mike Levine is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

Notwithstanding the FDA’s finding that “[c]urrent scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics detected in foods pose a risk to human health,” the plaintiffs’ bar steadfastly continues to file class action lawsuits claiming otherwise.

Time 4 Minute Read

A Delaware court recently held in Mattel, Inc. and Fisher Price, Inc. v. XL Insurance America, Inc., et al., that a series of product liability claims dating back to 2013 constituted a single “occurrence” under the toy manufacturer’s and distributor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policies.

Time 4 Minute Read

A Delaware court recently held in Mattel, Inc. and Fisher Price, Inc. v. XL Insurance America, Inc., et al., that a series of product liability claims dating back to 2013 constituted a single “occurrence” under the toy manufacturer’s and distributor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policies.

The case stemmed from Mattel’s request for defense and indemnity coverage in response to claims that certain toys caused bodily injuries to infants. The CGL coverage tower, which included policies issued by multiple primary, excess, and umbrella insurers, spanned from 2011 to 2020.

Time 4 Minute Read

The recent surge in the cost of eggs because of the avian influenza (bird flu) is impacting many consumers. Multiple grocery store chains have implemented limitations on the amount of eggs a customer can buy and restaurants have imposed surcharges on menu items with eggs. Consumers, however, are not the only ones feeling the economic impact of the ravage to poultry flocks, poultry farmers and producers are also feeling the financial strain. As we have explained in the past, insurance can help mitigate the risks to poultry farmers and producers associated with these kinds of events. Here, we explore how some types of coverages can help protect poultry farmers and producers who face unexpected events, such as those stemming from illness or contamination of a flock, that disrupt operations or cause a business loss.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page