Cargill, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a Massachusetts Corporation

621 F.2d 275, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19041
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 1, 1980
Docket79-1610
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 621 F.2d 275 (Cargill, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a Massachusetts Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cargill, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a Massachusetts Corporation, 621 F.2d 275, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19041 (8th Cir. 1980).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) appeals from the entry of final judgment upon a jury verdict and the denial of Liberty Mutual’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. This motion followed a trial in which the jury found that the insured, Car-gill, Inc., had arrived at a reasonable settlement in response to a defective product claim by Abbott Laboratories and that the claim was covered by a comprehensive general liability policy issued to Cargill by Liberty Mutual. In a special verdict, the jury determined that the policy’s “business risk” exclusion did not apply by answering in the negative an interrogatory inquiring whether the property damage in question resulted from the failure of Cargill’s product to per *276 form the function or serve the purpose intended by Cargill. In its memorandum opinion, the district court 1 held, inter alia, that the jury’s special verdict was amply supported by the evidence and that the property damage in question, although occurring over an extended period of time, was the result of but one occurrence for purposes of applying a deductible of $50,000 per occurrence. Liberty Mutual challenges these holdings on appeal.

After considering the record and the briefs and arguments of the parties, we are satisfied that the evidence in support of the jury verdict is not insufficient and that no error of law appears. We affirm the district court’s denial of appellant’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial for the reasons set out in its memorandum and order published at 488 F.Supp. 49 (1979).

Affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Harry H. MacLaughlin, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Board of County Commissioners v. Marcas, L.L.C.
4 A.3d 946 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2010)
B.H.D., Inc. v. Nippon Insurance Co. of Europe, Ltd.
46 Cal. App. 4th 1137 (California Court of Appeal, 1996)
United States Gypsum Co. v. Admiral Insurance
643 N.E.2d 1226 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1994)
American Red Cross v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
816 F. Supp. 755 (District of Columbia, 1993)
Whittaker Corp. v. Allianz Underwriters, Inc.
11 Cal. App. 4th 1236 (California Court of Appeal, 1992)
Chemstar, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
797 F. Supp. 1541 (C.D. California, 1992)
Sting Security, Inc. v. First Mercury Syndicate, Inc.
791 F. Supp. 555 (D. Maryland, 1992)
Dow Chemical Co. v. Associated Indemnity Corp.
727 F. Supp. 1524 (E.D. Michigan, 1989)
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Home Insurance
707 F. Supp. 1368 (E.D. New York, 1988)
American Motorists Insurance v. Trane Co.
544 F. Supp. 669 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
621 F.2d 275, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cargill-inc-a-delaware-corporation-v-liberty-mutual-insurance-company-ca8-1980.