Goodyear Rub. & Sup. Co., Inc. v. Great American Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 05 January 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 26694.,26694. |
Citation | 471 F.2d 1343 |
Parties | GOODYEAR RUBBER & SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Thomas S. Moore (argued), George M. Joseph, of Morrison & Bailey, Morton H. Zalutsky, Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellant.
John J. Higgins (argued), Stuart Hall, David J. Krieger, of Black, Kendall, Tremaine, Boothe & Higgins, Portland, Or., for defendant-appellee.
Before BROWNING, CARTER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
This declaratory judgment action, based on diversity of citizenship, was tried on stipulated facts. The plaintiff below, Goodyear, sought an interpretation of a policy of liability insurance issued to it by the defendant Great American and an adjudication that a damage claim made against Goodyear by a third party was within the coverage of the policy. Goodyear also sought a ruling that Great American had an obligation to defend a suit brought on that claim and that, because of its failure to do so, Great American was liable for the costs of the defense of the original suit. The district court entered judgment for the defendant, concluding that there was no obligation on the part of Great American to defend the original suit or to pay any portion of the settlement. Goodyear appeals and we reverse.
The parties have stipulated that Goodyear fabricated and sold hatch gasket material to Northwest Marine which installed it in Portland, Oregon on the S. S. Arizona, an ocean going vessel. On the next voyage of the Arizona, the material was found to be defective. The vessel was returned to Portland and Northwest removed and replaced the gaskets.
Northwest then sued Goodyear for the cost of new gasket material and also for the cost of removing the defective material and replacing it with the new material. Northwest recovered a judgment and the suit was then settled, pending appeal, for $20,000, of which $14,500 represented costs and labor involved in removing and replacing the defective material. The Northwest suit was tendered to Great American which declined to defend. Goodyear incurred attorneys' fees and costs of $6,924.96 in defending the Northwest suit. No question is raised concerning the reasonableness of this amount.
The policy of insurance provided in part:
In the suit by Northwest against Goodyear, the complaint alleged the breach by Goodyear of various express and implied warranties and consequent "damage to the S. S. Arizona." When the defense was tendered to Great American it refused, stating in part:
". . . your client\'s insurance policy . . . contains an exclusion under which coverage does not apply to injury to or destruction of any goods, or products manufactured, sold, handled or distributed by the insured, or work completed by the insured . . . ."
Great American's refusal of the tender was wrongful. It was not the allegation of a breach of warranty but the allegation of damages which raised the duty to defend. Northwest's complaint alleged that the S. S. Arizona had been damaged in the amount of $42,836. Of this, $37,336 represented the costs and labor involved in removing and replacing the defective material. Only $5,500 represented the cost of the new gasket.
Under well-settled principles, when one product is integrated into a larger entity and the product proves defective, the damage is considered as damage to the entity to the extent that the market value of the entity is reduced by an amount in excess of the value of the defective product.1
Northwest's complaint alleges damage to the S. S. Arizona far in excess of the cost of new gaskets. The complaint thus alleged damage to property other than the product defectively manufactured by Goodyear and Great American should have accepted the tender of defense.2
In Hauenstein v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., 242 Minn. 354, 65 N.W. 2d 122 (1954), the insured sold acoustical plaster to a contractor who used it in building a hospital. The plaster shrunk and cracked and the contractor had to remove it and replaster. Under a policy similar to the one before us, the court held that the cost of the plaster itself was subject to the exclusion, but the cost of removal and replacement, as well as loss of use, were chargeable against the insured. The court said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dayton Independent School D. v. National Gypsum Co.
...Travelers Ins. Co. v. Volentine, 578 S.W.2d 501, 504 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1979, no writ). See also Goodyear Rubber & Supply Co. v. Great American Ins. Co., 471 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir.1973). Thus, the "own product" exclusion does not bar coverage for the damages alleged to have been sustained......
-
Yakima Cement Products Co. v. Great American Ins. Co.
...only and did not extend to withdrawal and recall of defective products by a third party customer.10 Goodyear Rub. & Sup. Co., Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 471 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1973); Western Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Polar Panel Co., 457 F.2d 957 (8th Cir. 1972); Arcos Corp. v. American Mut. Lia......
-
Pittway Corp. v. American Motorists Ins. Co.
...in value or made useless irrespective of any actual physical injury to the tangible property. See Goodyear Rub. & Sup. Co., Inc. v. Great American Ins. Co., 471 F.2d 1343, 1344 (9th Cir. 1973); Sturges Manufacturing Co. v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co., 37 N.Y.2d 69, 371 N.Y.S.2d 444, 447, 332 N.E.......
-
Marathon Plastics, Inc. v. International Ins. Co.
...pipe. Our review satisfies us that this conforms with the majority position on the question. In Goodyear Rubber & Supply Co. v. Great American Insurance Co. (9th Cir.1973), 471 F.2d 1343, defective door gaskets to be used on ships were involved. The court found no recovery for replacement g......
-
The Y2K bug: will insurance carriers be stung by a swarm of claims?
...Pittway Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 370 N.E.2d 1271, 1274 (III.App. 1977); Goodyear Rubber & Supply Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 471 F.2d 1343, 1344 (9th Cir. 1973). (24.) See, e.g., St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Computer Systems Inc., 490 N.W.2d 626 (Minn. App. 1992) ......