69 F.3d 537 (6th Cir. 1995), 94-3684, SCM Chemicals, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

Docket Nº:94-3684.
Citation:69 F.3d 537
Party Name:SCM CHEMICALS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:November 02, 1995
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 537

69 F.3d 537 (6th Cir. 1995)

SCM CHEMICALS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-3684.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

November 2, 1995

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, No. 92-02382; Lesley Brooks Wells, District Judge.

N.D.Ohio

AFFIRMED.

Before: NELSON, RYAN, and McKAY, [*] Circuit Judges.

DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judge.

Invoking federal diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff SCM Chemicals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of a corporation known as HSCM, Inc., sued defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company to recover amounts expended in settling two personal injury claims asserted by employees of an SCM Chemicals contractor. The contractor was insured under a liability policy issued by Nationwide.

At the request of an entity known as SCM Corporation, which was the predecessor in interest of HSCM, the contractor had procured the issuance of an endorsement naming SCM Corp. as an additional insured. The plaintiff subsidiary, SCM Chemicals, is attempting to claim the benefit of endorsements in subsequent renewal policies that likewise named SCM Corp. as an additional insured.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court entered judgment in favor of Nationwide. There being no evidence that anyone had ever asked to have the plaintiff subsidiary named as an additional insured under the Nationwide policy, the court reasoned that the policy did not insure the subsidiary.

The plaintiff does not contend on appeal that there is any issue of material fact here. The plaintiff argues, however, that the district court erred as a matter of law in (1) failing to recognize the rights of the parent corporation, (2) failing properly to resolve a latent ambiguity in the renewal policies, (3) failing to reform the renewal policies to name "SCM Chemicals, Inc.," as an additional insured on the theory that there was a mutual mistake; and (4) failing to treat the naming of "SCM Corp." as a unilateral mistake necessitating reformation. We find none of these arguments persuasive, and we shall affirm the judgment entered by the district court.

I

In 1983 SCM Corporation purchased from a Gulf & Western affiliate a titanium dioxide plant located at 2426 Middle Road in Ashtabula, Ohio. SCM Corporation operated the Middle Road plant until September of 1985 through an unincorporated division known as the "Pigments Division."

The Pigments Division became a separate corporation on September 5, 1985. The new entity, now known as SCM Chemicals, Inc., was wholly owned by SCM Corporation.

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP