Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage | February.01.2013
This article, about a $1.4 million settlement in an insurance coverage action involving contaminated milk, quotes insurance of counsel Marc Mayerson, who has handled coverage disputes involving adulterated food.
"The court nicely summarizes the applicable authorities nationwide and reaches an entirely unsurprising conclusion in favor of coverage. Indeed, it is difficult to fathom what kinds of losses would be covered under the insured's product liability coverage if this case were not covered," Mayerson said.
"The insurer tried to argue, unsuccessfully, that there was no contamination; were there any contamination, then there was only breach of contract but no property damage; and if there were property damage, then monies paid by the insured still aren't covered because they were for uncovered economic loss to its customer. All of these arguments have been rejected in similar contexts, and the court correctly and summarily rejected them all here," he added.