Coupled Products LLC v. Harleysville Insurance Company, 1:09-cv-00349

CP designed and manufactured auto parts at its Rochester Hills, Michigan facility, including prototype power steering hose assemblies and tooling.
CP had proprietary latch plate designs and a unique process to lock the latch plate to assemblies, giving it a competitive advantage.
In December 2008, Nobel, a direct competitor, stole CP component parts from CP’s facility; the theft involved many items.
GM canceled CP’s GM/Mando contract in December 2008; the following week GM reportedly awarded a contract for similar parts to Nobel.
CP sought coverage for business interruption losses under Harleysville’s policy, including alleged loss of competitive advantage.
Harleysville denied coverage in July 2009; CP sued in December 2009; the court addressed choice of law and policy interpretation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the theft caused a business interruption	CP contends partial interruption due to loss of proprietary parts and competitive advantage.	Harleysville asserts no interruption occurred because CP’s usual operations continued.	No genuine issue; there was no interruption.
Whether a restoration period existed under the policy	CP argues restoration would be needed to resume competitive operations.	Without interruption, no restoration period applies.	No restoration period; none occurred.
Whether loss of competitive advantage is within business interruption coverage	Loss of exclusive components could constitute business interruption.	Policy covers interruption of operations, not loss of竞争 advantage due to theft.	Loss of competitive advantage is not covered as business interruption.

Apartment Movers of America, Inc. v. OneBeacon Lloyd’s of Texas, 2005 WL 106477 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (partial interruption not enough without suspension of operations)
Winters v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 73 F.3d 224 (9th Cir. 1995) (loss of competitive advantage insufficient where operations continue)
Ramada Inn Ramogreen, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America, 835 F.2d 812 (11th Cir. 1988) (need to meet customer demand, not merely reduced demand)
Rothenberg v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 153 S.E.2d 447 (Ga. 1967) (no interruption where reliance on inventory loss)
Howard Stores Corp. v. Foremost Insurance Co., 441 N.Y.S.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981) (no recovery where no actual suspension of business)
Buczkowski v. Allstate Insurance Co., 526 N.W.2d 589 (Mich. 1994) (two-step analysis for insurance coverage: existence then exclusions)
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Aon Risk Services, Inc. of Minnesota, 356 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2004) (policy language governs restoration and coverage scope)
Pennbarr Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 976 F.2d 145 (3d Cir. 1992) (lost income outside restoration period not recoverable)