Hyosung USA, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am.

2022 NCBC 27

• Court: North Carolina Business Court
• Decided: May 24, 2022
• Docket: 19-CVS-23974
• Status: Published

Opinion

Hyosung USA, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2022 NCBC 27.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION MECKLENBURG COUNTY 19-CVS-23974

HYOSUNG USA, INC.,

Plaintiff, FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST v. DEFENDANT TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY OF AMERICA COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

1. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Hyosung USA, Inc.’s

(“Hyosung”) Motion for Entry of Final Judgment against Defendant Travelers

Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”) (the “Motion”). (ECF No. 124.)

Travelers has advised by email that it does not object to the entry of a final judgment

in the form attached to the Motion. Having considered the Motion, Travelers’ position

on the Motion, and other appropriate matters of record, the Court GRANTS the

Motion and enters final judgment for Hyosung as provided herein.

Bray & Long, PLLC, by Jeffrey A. Long, and Thompson Hine LLP, by Christopher M. Bechhold, for Plaintiff Hyosung USA, Inc.

Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, by Ryan H. Niland, and Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP, by Bryant Green and Craig D. Roswell, for Defendant Travelers Property Casualty Company of America.

Bledsoe, Chief Judge. I.

FINDINGS OF FACT

2. Hyosung filed two motions for partial summary judgment in this action

under Rule 56 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to establish its

preferred interpretation of certain terms of an insurance policy Travelers issued to

Hyosung (the “Travelers Policy”). 1 Hyosung’s first Rule 56 motion, (the “First

Motion,” ECF No. 81), sought a declaration that an insurance policy former defendant

Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”) issued 2 was not “other insurance”

under the Travelers Policy, and the second Rule 56 motion, (the “Second Motion,”

ECF No. 92), sought a declaration that the events at issue in this action constituted

a single occurrence under the Travelers Policy to which a single “windstorm”

deductible applied.

3. On 16 December 2021, the Court issued its Order and Opinion on

Plaintiff Hyosung’s First and Second Motions for Partial Summary Judgment against

Defendants Travelers and Hartford (the “Opinion”), (ECF No. 119), granting both

Motions and holding, among other things, that:

i. [T]he Hartford Policy does not constitute Other Insurance under the terms of the Travelers Policy. . . ; 3

1 The Travelers Policy is a first-party property policy and is in the record at ECF No. 82.2

(the “Travelers Policy”).

2 The Hartford policy at issue in this litigation (the “Hartford Policy”) is a third-party liability

insurance policy issued to former defendant Logipia USA, Inc. (“Logipia”) and is in the record at ECF No. 82.3.

3 Travelers refused to pay Hyosung under the Travelers Policy, contending that Travelers

had no duty to indemnify Hyosung for the first $2 million of loss for each Incident (a total of ii. [A]ll loss or damage arising from Incident 1 and Incident 2 constituted a single “occurrence” under the Travelers Policy; [and] iii. [A] single Windstorm Deductible applies to all loss or damage arising from Incident 1 and Incident 2 under the Travelers Policy;

and “ordering Travelers to pay to Hyosung the $1.55 million that Travelers deducted

from its payment to Hyosung for Incident 2 under the Travelers Policy.” 4 (Op. ¶ 60.)

4. Based on the Court’s conclusion concerning “other insurance,” the Court

dismissed Hyosung’s claims against Hartford. (Op. ¶ 60(a)).

5. On 22 March 2022, Hyosung voluntarily dismissed its claims against

former defendant USI Insurance Services, LLC with prejudice. (ECF No. 122.)

6. On 6 May 2022, Hyosung voluntarily dismissed its claims against

Logipia without prejudice. (ECF No. 123.)

7. On 19 May 2022, Logipia voluntarily dismissed its claims against Duke

Realty without prejudice. (ECF No. 125.)

8. As a result of the dismissals and judgment set forth above, the only

remaining defendant in the case is Travelers.

$4 million) because the Other Insurance provision in the Travelers Policy required Hyosung to recover those sums from Hartford under the Hartford Policy. (Op. ¶ 14.) 4 Incident 1 refers to the event occurring “[o]n or about 19 April 2019 [when] a Windstorm

[as defined in the Travelers Policy] removed large portions of the . . . roof [of a warehouse (the “Warehouse”) owned by former third-party defendant Duke Realty Limited Partnership (“Duke Realty”)], allowing water to enter the Warehouse and damage and/or destroy Hyosung [p]roducts stored there.” (Op. ¶ 12.) Incident 2 refers to the event occurring “on 26 April 2019, [when] the plastic sheeting [installed to prevent further water damage] failed and allegedly activated the Warehouse’s sprinkler system, causing further water damage to Hyosung’s [p]roducts.” (Op. ¶ 12.) II.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

9. In granting Hyosung’s motions for partial summary judgment, the Court

has now ruled on all the legal claims for relief asserted by Hyosung against Travelers.

(Op. ¶ 60.) Travelers therefore owes Hyosung (i) $4 million for withholding this

amount based upon Travelers’ contention that the Hartford Policy constituted “other

insurance” under the terms of the Travelers Policy and (ii) $1.55 million for

withholding this amount as a second “windstorm” deductible based upon Travelers’

contention that Incidents 1 and 2 constituted separate Windstorm occurrences under

the Travelers Policy. (Op. ¶¶ 14, 60.)

10. Accordingly, Travelers owes Hyosung a total of $5.55 million ($4 million

+ $1.55 million), which Travelers wrongfully withheld from the funds it owed to

Hyosung under the Travelers Policy.

11. Hyosung is also entitled to both pre- and post-judgment interest on this

amount pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 24-5(a).

12. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. §24-1, the legal rate of interest is eight percent

(8%).

13. Travelers breached the terms of the Travelers Policy on 28 June 2019

when it refused to reimburse Hyosung for its losses. (Op. ¶¶ 14, 34, 55, 60; see also

ECF Nos. 82.4, 82.5.)

14. Thus, interest began to accrue on 28 June 2019 and continues to accrue

against the judgment amount, $5.55 million, until paid. N.C.G.S. § 24-5(a). III.

CONCLUSION

15. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby

GRANTS Hyosung’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment and ENTERS FINAL

JUDGMENT against Travelers in the amount of $5.55 Million plus pre- and post-

judgment interest at the legal rate of 8% from 28 June 2019 until satisfied.

SO ORDERED, this the 24th day of May, 2022.

/s/ Louis A. Bledsoe, III Louis A. Bledsoe, III Chief Business Court Judge