Search
Close this search box.

Significant Win for London Underwriter on Cargo Policy which was Entirely Untested in the US Courts

FILE - This July 21, 2012, file photo photo, shows the exterior of the U.S. Courthouse for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. A surge of COVID-19 cases sparked by the delta variant is prompting federal courts to impose new restrictions and requirements for mask-wearing and vaccinations. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart, File)

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Pero Family Farm Food Co. Ltd.

Case No. 20-12711, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

View Opinion

We are beyond excited to report yet another huge win in a significant marine cargo dispute for a London underwriter client led by Partner Krista Fowler Acuña

This involved a hurricane Irma claim by a commercial vegetable seller.  The company was paid $1.5 million for losses of harvested vegetables that were stored in cold storage and spoiled due to loss of power from the hurricane.

But the insured made additional claims for losses of crops that were growing in the ground as well as seedlings that were being grown in greenhouses by a contractor.  The insured not only sought coverage for these items, but calculated the value of the loss based on the retail sale value of those plants as if they had fully matured and been harvested and sold to their retail customers.  The claim was for approximately $9 million.

HM&B obtained summary judgment in our favor and the insured appealed to the 11th circuit.  The court held oral argument in January of 2022.  The 11th finally issued its opinion affirming summary judgment!! 

This win is particularly huge because the cargo policy was, for those unfamiliar with London broker drafted slips (which was partially bespoke wording combined with several London Institute cargo clauses), was entirely untested in US Courts and there was no existing appellate decisions on substantially similar clauses.

Even for coverage attorneys in the firm that handled non-marine matters the opinion is useful- it clearly shows the vital importance of the entire policy being read in context and the Court giving meaning to all of its parts (including the title)- and rejecting insured’s attempts to apply only small parts of the policy to their advantage.

This landmark case has been reported on several media outlets such as LAW360.com and businessinsurance.com.