Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., s. 442
| Decision Date | 23 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 442,D,535,s. 442 |
| Citation | 822 F.2d 267 |
| Parties | COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant. ockets 86-7691, 86-7701. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Walter Williamson, New York City (David S. Ratner, Nancy Berger, Williamson & Williamson, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant, cross-appellee.
George Rowe, Jr., New York City (Michael J. Gayor, Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee, cross-appellant.
Before OAKES, CARDAMONE, and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
Commercial Union Insurance Company ("CU") brought this declaratory judgment action in the Southern District of New York seeking a determination that it had no duty either to defend or to indemnify its insured, International Flavors and Fragrances, Inc. ("IFF"), in a product liability action brought against IFF by Plough, Inc. ("Plough"). IFF counterclaimed for the amounts it had expended in defending and settling the Plough action and for its attorneys' fees in the instant case. After a jury verdict in favor of CU, Judge Pollack set aside the verdict to the extent that it denied IFF reimbursement for its costs in defending the Plough suit and ordered a new trial on that issue. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 633 F.Supp. 646 (S.D.N.Y.1986). The jury in the second trial found that IFF was entitled to recover all of its costs of defending the Plough suit. Judgment was entered for IFF in the amounts of $834,913 for its costs in the Plough action and $372,597.20 for its costs in the instant case, 639 F.Supp. 1401.
Both parties have appealed. Because the first jury properly found that IFF failed to comply with a provision of its insurance policy requiring it to give timely notice to CU of a relevant occurrence, we hold that judgment n.o.v. was improperly granted and order that judgment be entered for CU.
CU issued a comprehensive liability policy to IFF in 1976. It was renewed each year through 1979. The policy contained the usual promises to indemnify for losses and to provide a defense in lawsuits within the policy's coverage. It also required as a condition of coverage that IFF give written notice to CU "as soon as practicable" of an "occurrence" relevant to the coverage.
In July 1975, Plough asked IFF to provide it with a banana-coconut fragrance that would be compatible with the mineral base of Plough's newly-developed Tropical Blend suntan lotion. Plough was already buying a banana-coconut fragrance compatible with the base of its Tropical Blend suntan oil from Perry Brothers, Inc. Plough provided IFF with a sample of the Perry Brothers fragrance, and IFF created a similar fragrance for use in the Tropical Blend suntan lotion. IFF supplied Plough with about 62,000 pounds of that fragrance from 1975 to 1977 at a total price of about $772,000. The IFF and Perry Brothers fragrances Sometime during 1975 or 1976, Plough began receiving complaints of adverse skin reactions following use of its Tropical Blend products. On July 30, 1976, Plough's chief toxicologist, Dr. Eden F. Keith, informed IFF's chief toxicologist, Dr. Otho D. Easterday, that fifteen persons had reported such skin reactions. Dr. Keith explained that three of these persons had required hospitalization and that Plough had communicated the problem to the United States Food & Drug Administration ("FDA"). Dr. Easterday was also advised by Plough that there was no evidence that IFF's fragrance was involved. He nevertheless reported the July 1976 complaints to two senior IFF executives, President Eugene P. Grisanti and Vice President Joseph T. Bannan.
both contained 6-methyl coumarin ("6-MC"), a fragrance and flavoring agent that had been widely used without incident in foods, cosmetics, and toiletries since the 1920's.
Dr. Easterday, who became a vice president of IFF in May 1977, consulted repeatedly over the next year with his counterparts at Plough as they attempted to identify the cause of the adverse skin reactions. On June 23, Plough executives John M. Clayton and Edward Marlowe met to discuss the skin reaction problem with Dr. Easterday and other IFF personnel. Dr. Clayton stated that there had been fifty reports of skin reactions, ten of which had been validated by physicians. Dr. Easterday knew that there were between nine million and twenty million units of Tropical Blend "in the field" at this time. He did not know how many of these had been purchased by consumers and how many were still held by wholesalers or retailers.
On the basis of new clinical tests, a group of dermatologists concluded in July 1977 that the Tropical Blend skin reactions were photoallergenic in nature and were caused by 6-MC. On September 9, 1977, Dr. Clayton reported these results to Dr. Easterday, who agreed that 6-MC appeared to be the ingredient that was causing skin reactions in Tropical Blend users. IFF executives Grisanti and Bannan were also made aware of this conclusion by autumn 1977. By this time, Plough had returned the unused fragrance containing 6-MC, for which IFF gave Plough a credit of about $18,000. At Plough's request, IFF reformulated the fragrance without 6-MC and supplied it to Plough through 1978. Tests by outside laboratories subsequently confirmed that 6-MC was the source of the Tropical Blend skin reaction problem. In December 1977, Dr. Easterday learned that Dr. Albert Kligman of the University of Pennsylvania Department of Dermatology had concluded that 6-MC was the most potent photoallergen he had ever encountered. One year later, on December 2, 1978, the FDA informed IFF by telegram that 6-MC was being banned from use in suncare products. 1 IFF informed its insurance broker of the FDA's action in a letter dated December 8, 1978.
On March 14, 1979, Plough filed an action against IFF and Perry Brothers in federal district court in Memphis, Tennessee. Plough alleged that the allergic reactions from the 6-MC ingredient in the fragrances produced by IFF and Plough had caused it to incur $10,000,000 in damages, including the loss of millions of units of Tropical Blend containing 6-MC, the expenses of research and testing, the costs of Upon receiving the complaint, IFF notified CU of the lawsuit. It is undisputed on appeal that the allegations of the Plough complaint fell within the policy's products hazard clause. Further, CU was obligated under the policy to defend IFF in any suit that implicated coverage regardless of whether the allegations were groundless.
handling and settling consumer claims and lawsuits, lost profits, and other costs associated with the Tropical Blend problem.
On April 17, 1979, a Memphis law firm, Holt, Batchelor, Spicer & Ryan, notified IFF that it had been retained by CU "regarding representation of" IFF. IFF's outside general counsel, the New York firm of Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe, requested that it also be listed as counsel of record. The litigation proceeded uneventfully, with the Fulton firm initiating pretrial motions and providing supporting documents to be filed in Memphis by the Holt firm. In correspondence dated May 3 and May 16, however, the Holt firm informed the Fulton firm that CU had not yet confirmed its coverage. 2 On May 31, 1979, CU notified IFF that there appeared to be "no coverage" due to "late notice and other policy violations" and that CU was "proceeding to investigate ... with a complete reservation of all rights under the policy." IFF refused to allow CU to defend it under such terms and instructed the Fulton firm to retain other Memphis counsel. CU thereafter withdrew its defense of the suit. On July 8, 1980, CU wrote to IFF reiterating its denial of coverage.
On November 26, 1980, CU filed the instant action in the Southern District seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty either to defend or to indemnify IFF in the Plough action because IFF had not given timely notice of a relevant occurrence. The court stayed CU's action pending the outcome of the Plough case. The Plough case went to trial on November 14, 1983, and was settled by IFF for $750,000 on November 21, 1983. IFF then counterclaimed against CU in the instant action for the amounts it had expended to defend and settle the Plough case and for its attorneys' fees in this case.
At trial, CU claimed that IFF should have known by September 1977 that Plough might sue it for damages caused by the fragrance. IFF contended that it had no reason to anticipate a lawsuit until the actual filing of the complaint in March 1979 and that its failure to notify CU earlier was excused by its good faith belief of nonliability. The district court instructed the jury to "report a general verdict" for either IFF or CU. The jury found that "IFF is not entitled to damages," and, upon questioning by the courtroom clerk, each juror affirmed that his or her verdict was for CU.
IFF then moved for judgment n.o.v. or for a new trial. Judge Pollack granted IFF's motion in part and denied it in part. Commercial Union, 633 F.Supp. 646. He first concluded that a breach of the notice-of-occurrence clause was not a proper basis for CU to refuse to defend the Plough lawsuit. Id. at 649. He further determined that by "unconditionally" undertaking IFF's defense in the Plough action from the outset, CU could not thereafter "renege." Id. at 650. Holding that CU had breached its duty to defend IFF, Judge Pollack set aside the verdict to the extent that it denied IFF reimbursement for its costs in defending the Plough action. Id. at 651.
With regard to whether CU had a duty to indemnify IFF for the amount paid in settling the Plough case, Judge Pollack opined that the issue was a "more difficult one." Id. at 652. He observed that there was substantial evidence that IFF executives had a good faith...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of N.Y. v. Blank
...comply with the notice-of-occurrence and notice-of-claims provisions of an insurance policy. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 822 F.2d 267, 271 (2d Cir.1987) ("Under New York law, compliance with a notice-of-occurrence provision in an insurance policy i......
-
Asbeka Industries v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...the insured's failure to satisfy the notice of claim requirement vitiates the policy."); Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 822 F.2d 267, 271, 273 (2d Cir.1987); Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos., 748 F.2d 118, 121 (2d Cir.1984); Eveready In......
-
Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. City of San Diego
...of nonliability.” Sparacino v. Pawtucket Mut. Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 141, 143 (2d Cir.1995) (citing Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Int'l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 822 F.2d 267, 271 (2d Cir.1987)); see also Abner, Herrman & Brock, Inc., 308 F.Supp.2d at 337;Sec. Mut. Ins. Co., 340 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2......
-
Alcazar v. Hayes
...notice benefits the public by enabling the insurer to prevent the insured's continued conduct. See Commercial Union Ins. v. Int'l Flavors & Fragrances, 822 F.2d 267, 271 (2d Cir.1987).4 Although the Arkansas Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that prejudice is irrelevant with regard to......
-
The Role Of Liability Insurance Policy Notice Conditions In Product Liability Claims
...activities to avoid or minimize liability. See, e.g., Commercial Union Insurance Company v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 822 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1987). By requiring that they be provided timely notice of an accident or an occurrence, insurers guarantee to themselves the abili......
-
Table of Cases
...Serv. v. Datapoint Corp ., 641 F Supp 1579 (MD La 1986), §8:525 Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. , 822 F2d 267 (2d Cir 1987), §2:164 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate of Bosch , 387 US 456 (1967), §8:422 Commissioner of Labor of State of New Yor......
-
Chapter Twenty-Eight
...the lack of reasonable notice prejudiced the insurer.”).[3830] . See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Int’l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 822 F.2d 267, 272 (2d Cir. 1987); Ogden Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 731 F. Supp. 143, 145 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). [3831] . See Sargent v. Johnson, 551 F.2d 221 (8t......
-
Chapter Thirty-One
...a condition precedent to an insurer’s liability under the policy.”) (citing Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Int’l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 822 F.2d 267, 271 (2d Cir. 1987)).[4284] . Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 90 N.Y.2d 433, 661 N.Y.S.2d 584 (1997).[4285] . Gresham v. Am. Gen.......
-
Table of Cases
...Corp ., 641 F Supp 1579 (MD La 1986), §8:525 C-25 TABLE OF CASES Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. , 822 F2d 267 (2d Cir 1987), §2:164 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate of Bosch , 387 US 456 (1967), §8:422 Commissioner of Labor of State of New Yo......