Bold Corp., Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., A94A2510
| Decision Date | 10 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. A94A2510,A94A2510 |
| Citation | 454 S.E.2d 582,216 Ga.App. 382 |
| Parties | BOLD CORPORATION, INC. v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Thomas E. Pujadas, Ocilla, for appellant.
R. Dennis Withers, Judith Inge Harris, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Atlanta, for appellee.
Bold Corporation, Inc., which operates an herbicide blending facility, brought this action against its insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., seeking damages under a contract of property insurance arising from the contamination of certain agricultural chemicals formulated by Bold. The insurer denied the claim, contending the loss was excluded from coverage under the policy. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed, and the trial court granted the insurer's motion and denied that of Bold.
The parties disagree regarding the construction of the policy exclusions and their application to the material facts, which are undisputed. They agree that the loss was caused by contamination of two products blended by Bold: Linex 50 DF and Lorox DF. They also agree that these products were contaminated by the presence of Fluometuron. Fluometuron, a powdery substance, is an ingredient of Meturon 80 DF, a product blended by Bold immediately prior to the runs of Linex 50 DF and Lorox DF that were contaminated. Bold concedes that the Fluometuron that contaminated the Linex 50 DF and Lorox DF runs was "residue left from the Meturon 80 DF run."
The policy in issue is an all-risk policy; it covers the insured against "all risks of direct physical loss or damage ... from any external cause" except those excluded in the policy. The policy contains a number of exclusions, including those barring coverage for losses caused by "errors in processing," "mixing," "maintenance," and "pollution."
1. Bold contends that none of these exclusions is applicable because no evidence exists that the loss was occasioned by any of these excluded causes. We need not address each of the exclusions because we find it clear that the exclusion covering "errors in processing" is applicable and bars recovery.
After completing an in-house investigation of the contamination, Bold's safety director, Nancy Davis, issued a written report identifying several factors contributing to the loss. According to the report, one factor was that Bold experienced problems with its air filtration system during the blending of Meturon 80 DF between November 27, 1991 and December 30, 1991. 1 These problems apparently "made significant contributions to the contamination of subsequent products."
Another factor was that "the schedule did not allow enough time to do a full wash-down of the equipment" after the Meturon 80 DF run. After blending the Meturon 80 DF the equipment was cleaned using "clay flushes" and "sweep downs," but the Fluometuron remained "trapped" in the system in large quantities. The day after the Meturon 80 DF run was completed Bold began blending Linex 50 DF. Moreover, the clay flush was not analyzed for the presence of Fluometuron after the cleaning.
Because no new contaminant was introduced during the Lorox run, Davis concluded that the Fluometuron was left in the system after the Meturon run despite the clay flushes and sweep downs, and she recommended that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cowart v. Nautilus Ins. Co.
...omitted). The "words in an insurance contract must be given their usual, ordinary, and common meaning." Bold Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 454 S.E.2d 582,584 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (citing O.C.G.A. § 13-2-2(2) ("Words generally bear their usual and common signification . . . .")). In con......
-
Transportation Ins. Co. v. Freedom Electronics
...to read the policy as a whole and to give the words their usual, common, and ordinary meaning. See Bold Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 216 Ga.App. 382, 383-84, 454 S.E.2d 582 (1995). Under Georgia law, ambiguities in an insurance contract must be construed favorably to the insured a......
-
In re Estate of Sims, A03A0704.
...the parties disagree upon its meaning. See Paul v. Paul, 235 Ga. 382, 384, 219 S.E.2d 736 (1975); Bold Corp. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co., 216 Ga.App. 382, 384(1), 454 S.E.2d 582 (1995). However, where the contract is ambiguous in its terms, then the trial court must apply the rules of const......
-
American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Etowah Bank
...(1999). Words of an insurance contract must be given their usual, ordinary, and common meaning. See Bold Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 216 Ga.App. 382, 454 S.E.2d 582, 584 (1995). A term is ambiguous if it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. See Hurst v. Grange ......
-
Insurance - Maximilian A. Pock
...Id. at 500, 455 S.E.2d at 135 (quoting the policy). 123. Id. at 501, 455 S.E.2d at 135. See Bold Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 216 Ga. App. 382, 454 S.E.2d 582 (1995) (giving literal effect to the "errors in processing" exclusion found in a manufacturer's all-risk policy); see also......
-
Insurance - Stephen L. Cotter and Charles M. Mcdaniel, Jr.
...Id. at 101-02, 505 S.E.2d at 829-30. 230. Id. at 102, 505 S.E.2d at 830. 231. Id. (citing Bold Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 216 Ga. App. 382, 384, 454 S.E.2d 582, 584 (1995)). 232. Id. at 102-03, 505 S.E.2d at 830 (citing Duncan v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp., 267 Ga. 646, 482 S.E.2d ......