Honeymead Products Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 39609

• Citation: 275 Minn. 182,146 N.W.2d 522
• Decision Date: 28 October 1966
• Docket Number: No. 39609,39609
• Parties: HONEYMEAD PRODUCTS COMPANY, et al., Appellants, v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Page 522

146 N.W.2d 522

275 Minn. 182

HONEYMEAD PRODUCTS COMPANY, et al., Appellants, v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, et al., Respondents.

No. 39609.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 28, 1966.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where there was evidence that fracture of steel oil storage tank owned by plaintiffs was caused by normal pressure from weight of huge mass of oil stored within it against steel plates forming tank walls, which had become brittle because of cold weather, and which were in area where door had been installed after construction of tank, and there was no evidence that some sudden or violent increase of internal pressure within tank had caused such fracture, Held jury's finding that fracture of tank was not due to an Explosion as covered by insurance policies is sustained by evidence.

2. Where court instructed jury with respect to popular meaning or understanding of term explosion and included within such instructions substance of several definitions of term set forth in plaintiffs' requested instructions, Held, court was not required to give in detail and in exactly same language requested by plaintiffs other definitions of the term.

3. Where policies of insurance insured plaintiffs against damages arising from 'explosion' of its oil storage tanks, but contained no definition of term 'explosion' and made reference to it only to the extent of stating that '(c) oncussion unless caused by explosion' and certain other mishaps were not to be regarded as explosions, Held, court did not err in denying jury's request that it have such policies in jury room to aid it in determining whether explosion had occurred, particularly where court had instructed it as to definition or meaning of term.

4. Where, over objection, court erroneously received evidence with respect to other insurance carried by plaintiffs which insured plaintiffs against loss by reason of reptured or fractured storage tanks and counsel for defendants in final argument to jury made reference to such other insurance, but plaintiffs' counsel stated that plaintiffs did not wish for a mistrial because of such procedure and requested corrective instructions instead, and court then instructed jury that additional insurance carried by plaintiffs had no bearing on case and that jury's only duty was to decide if there had been an explosion, it cannot be said that court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for new trial based upon errors in procedures described.

Richard J. Leonard and Eugene W. Warlich, St. Paul, Peter Dorsey, Minneapolis, for appellants.

Clausen, Hirsh, Miller & Gorman and Donald N. Clausen, John P. Gorman and Jacob Pincus, Chicago, Ill., Faegre & Benson and Wright W. Brooks, Minneapolis, Farrish, Zimmerman, Johnson & Manahan, James H. Manahan, Mankato, for respondents.

OPINION

THOMAS GALLAGHER, Justice.

Action by Honeymead Products Company, which operates a soybean oil storage and processing plant in Mankato, and Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association, lessor of the processing facilities, against some 60 insurance companies for approximately $3,000,000 damages which plaintiffs claim resulted from the 'explosion' of a steel oil storage tank (referred to hereinafter as the No. 1 tank) in Mankato; and which they claim were within the coverage of defendants' insurance policies against 'direct loss by * * * Explosion.' ¹ The jury determined that plaintiffs' damages were not the result of an 'explosion' of the tank referred to, and from an order denying their alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial plaintiffs take this appeal.

Plaintiffs contend (1) that the court should have instructed the jury as to various meanings of the word 'explosion' as it is commonly understood--that 'explosion' could mean 'a bursting with great noise and violence'; 'bursting noisily'; 'a bursting'; 'a violent expansion or bursting with noise,' because explosions are commonly understood to include such factors; (2) that the court should have further instructed the jury as to the meaning of the word 'explosion' when it requested additional advice with respect thereto; (3) that the court should have permitted the jury to examine the insurance policies; and (4) that the court should not have received testimony with respect to other insurance of plaintiffs against loss of oil by reason of 'Fracture, Rupture--Anything That Would Cause a Discharge or Leakage of the Oil Except 'Explosion."

Each of defendants' policies included identical sections insuring plaintiffs against loss resulting from the 'explosion' of their oil storage tanks and provided further that '(c)oncussion unless caused by explosion' is not an explosion 'within the intent or meaning of these provisions.'

The accident occurred January 23, 1963. At that time, plaintiffs' No. 1 tank, with a capacity of 3,600,000 gallons, was filled to a level of 32 feet 6 inches with 2,800,000 gallons of soybean oil which weighed approximately 7.7 pounds per gallon for a total weight of 21,560,000 pounds. This tank was 116 feet in diameter and 40 feet 6 inches high. It was made with a steel bottom and covered by a light conical steel roof. Its walls were made up of steel plate courses welded together, varying in thickness from 5/8 of an inch at the bottom course to 3/16 of an inch at the top. It was erected in Mankato in 1955 from used steel plate reclaimed from an old tank built in Oklahoma in 1929. In 1961 an opening measuring 8 by 8 feet had been cut in the bottom steel plates of this tank so as to permit a front-end loader to enter it for cleaning purposes. An oil-tight door for this opening was also installed some months later.

On the date of the accident the outside temperature was minus 21 degrees Fahrenheit. At about 9:15 a.m. on that date, the steel plate walls of the tank suddenly burst apart, ripping and tearing an opening on a line perpendicular to the door and extending upward from its top for a distance of approximately 30 feet, and thence tearing at right angles laterally about 90 degrees in both directions so that the steel plates were bent backwards 'like doors or wings.' The 2,800,000 gallons of soybean oil were suddenly released at that time and came rushing out 'like water through a broken dam,' causing the loss and damages for which this action was brought.

Witnesses who were in the near vicinity of the occurrence testified that the bursting of the tank was accompanied by what was described variously as 'a terrible noise * * * regular rumble'; 'far away thunder'; 'a dynamite blast * * * off in the distance'; 'a sonic boom'; a 'rumble like thunder'; 'a whoom'; 'a report or bursting * * * a real crack'; a 'roar-like * * * loud'; 'a large boom.'

There was testimony that no glass windows or other like objects were broken in any of the houses adjacent to the tank and that there was no evidence of burning, charring, or combustion of the oil or of any substance in or around the tank, or that any property was damaged in the vicinity other than by the massive flow of oil which followed the rupture of the tank.

Honeymead's executive vice president, Mr. Lowell Andreas, on the afternoon of the explosion wired the Chicago Board of Trade as required by its rules as follows:

'We wish to report the rupture of our soybean oil storage facility at Mankato, Minnesota, resulting in the substantially total loss of soybean oil under Chicago Board of Trade warehouse receipts, * * * at approximately 9:00 a.m., January 23, 1963, loss has been reported to the insurance carrier.'

Expert witnesses called by defendants testified that in their respective opinions the tank had burst when the extreme cold weather had caused the steel plate walls to lose most of their ductile qualities and to become brittle; that in addition the front door opening had produced stress concentration points, especially at the corners of the door where about 353,800 pounds of force had been concentrated; and that the cold weather which caused the metal to become brittle had produced a phenomenon known as 'cold weather fracture' at such pressure points. They testified further that after the tank had ruptured at the upper corners of the door the break had extended upward at a speed of between 2,000 and 2,500 feet per second.

Defendants presented other experts who testified with respect to the characteristics of an 'explosion.' One such witness testified that a characteristic of an explosion is a sudden increase in pressure, generated by the sudden formation of gas and giving off of heat, and that while ordinarily noise accompanies an explosion neither the presence of the noise, vibration, nor the release of energy would necessarily mean that an explosion had occurred, citing as an example the breaking of a dam followed by the sudden release of water, which is usually accompanied by noise and a release of energy but is not regarded as an explosion.

An expert called by plaintiffs testified that an increase in internal pressure is not necessary to an explosion and that '(t)he characteristics of an explosion, whether caused by chemical or physical means, is a sudden expansion or bursting associated with noise, with a sudden release of energy which has the capacity of doing great damage.'

Mr. Harold Groh, Honeymead's assistant secretary, testified that engineers employed as inspectors by the Fire Underwriters Inspection Bureau had inspected the tank on three occasions between the time when the door was installed and the accident and that the inspection bureau had never made any recommendation that the structure should be modified.

During cross-examination he was asked:

'Q. Now you were also required to obtain insurance for Honeymead against the peril of this tank being ruptured or fractured by some reason other than explosion. Isn't that a fact?

'Mr. Leonard (counsel for plaintiffs): If the Court please, that's objected to as being wholly immaterial to any issue in this...