HNRK Coverage Corner
On April 9, 2021, the Second Circuit issued a decision in Fabrique Innovations, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company, 20-1396-cv, holding that a policy’s “willful acts” exclusions were not triggered by a “simple breach of contract.” (N.B. HRNK insurance recovery partner Joshua Blosveren successfully represented the Appellee in this appeal.) The insured (“Fabrique”) made a claim under a cargo insurance policy that covered damage to fabric and plush merchandise temporarily in storage at specified locations. The goods at issue were lost “after Hancock Fabrics, Inc. (“Hancock”), the company that owned and operated the storage warehouse, petitioned for bankruptcy and received authorization from the bankruptcy court to liquidate its holdings—including Fabrique’s merchandise—through closing sales.” The insurer (“Federal”) denied the claim, arguing that Hancock’s actions triggered policy exclusions for: (1) “loss, damage or expense caused by or resulting from willful misconduct, fraud or deceit . . . by other parties involved in the sale or purchase of merchandise . . . “; and (2) “any dishonest or fraudulent act or acts committed . . . by any proprietor, partner, director, trustee or elected officer of any organization . . . engaged by you to provide services in connection with the storage of the merchandise.”
The District Court granted summary judgment to the insured, and the Second Circuit affirmed, explaining:
Under New York law, to negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion applies in the particular case and that its interpretation of the exclusion is the only construction that could fairly be placed thereon. . . .
Neither exclusion applied to Hancock’s sale of Fabrique’s goods because that conduct did not involve willful misconduct, fraud deceit, or a dishonest act. The New York Court of Appeals has defined “willful acts” provisions in negotiated contracts to require “conduct which is tortious in nature, i.e., wrongful conduct in which defendant willfully intends to inflict harm on plaintiff at least in part through the means of breaching the contract between the parties. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Noble Lowndes Int’l, Inc., 84 N.Y.2d 430, 438 (1994). To constitute willful misconduct, therefore, the breaching party’s conduct must have extended well beyond a simple breach of contract. Here, Hancock’s liquidation of its holdings in breach of its third-party logistics agreement with Fabrique was not “truly culpable, harmful conduct,” but “merely intentional nonperformance . . . motivated by financial self-interest.” Metro. Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d at 438. On advice of counsel, Hancock candidly informed Fabrique it would not return the goods, then sought and received authorization from the bankruptcy court for conducting closing sales. We are hard pressed to find tortious misconduct or dishonesty where a party openly sought and obtained leave from a court before engaging in the conduct at issue, and where the opposing party had an opportunity to object. In light of this and the parties’ representations to the district court that there was no genuine issue of material fact concerning the underlying dispute between Fabrique and Hancock, summary judgment in favor of Fabrique was appropriate.
The issue of insurance coverage for “intentional” conduct arises in a number of contexts. As a matter of public policy, D&O and other liability policies do not provide indemnity coverage for fraudulent or other intentional wrongdoing—although typically, the exclusion is not triggered until there is a final judgment against the insured in the underlying lawsuit. Effectively, this means that the policy provides defense coverage for alleged fraud, but no indemnity coverage if the fraud is proven. (See a previous post on D&O coverage for alleged criminal conduct here. CGL policies are triggered by an “occurrence” (defined as an “accident”), not intentional conduct. Importantly, however, the courts recognize that “[a]ccidental results can flow from intentional acts.” Or, stated otherwise, “[t]he damages in question may be unintended” (and therefore covered) “even though the original act or acts leading to the damage were intentional.” Salimbene v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 217 A.D.2d 991, 994 (4th Dep’t 1995). See our previous posts on the occurrence/accident issue.
- Partner
Bradley Nash represents policyholders in insurance disputes and other parties in complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts in New York and across the country. Brad focuses his practice on insurance recovery for ...
Search Blog
Recent Posts
- Delaware Bankruptcy Court Rules That Qui Tam Action Filed Under Seal—and Never Served—Triggers D&O Policy’s Prior and Pending Litigation Exclusion
- “Related Acts” and the Claims Made Policy—The Policy Provision that “Cannot Be Applied Literally”
- California Court Rules that FTC’s Civil Investigative Demand is Not a Covered Claim Under Technology Errors and Omissions Policy
- Delaware Court Dismisses D&O Coverage Action as Premature Under Policy’s “No Action” Clause
- Chubb Prepares to Pay $350 Million to State of Maryland for Baltimore Bridge Collapse
- Sixth Circuit Rules That Insurer is Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs, Holding That Reservation of Rights Letter Created an Implied-In-Fact Contract
- Fifth Circuit Holds Contract Exclusion Does Not Bar Defense Coverage for Ticket Holders Lawsuit Arising From Festival Cancelled During Covid-19 Pandemic
- HNRK Secures Win for Syngenta in Insurance Coverage Appeal at Delaware Supreme Court
- New York Court Considers Evidence Regarding Insurers Handling of Prior Claims in Denying Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment
- HNRK Insurance Recovery Partners Author Article for Chambers 2024 Global Practice Guide
Popular Categories
- Insurance Coverage
- Policy Exclusions
- CGL Policies
- D&O Policies
- Duty to Defend
- Damages
- E&O Policies
- Occurrence/Accident
- Related Claims
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- Rules of Interpretation
- Business Interruption Coverage
- Cyber Coverage
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- Indemnification and Advancement
- COVID-19
- Pollution Exclusion
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Excess Insurance
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Attorney Fees
- Covered Loss
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Priority of Coverage
- Intellectual Property
- Contracts
- Professional Malpractice
- Rescission
- Intervention/Joinder
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- November 2021
- June 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018