Mahaska Pork, L.P. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America
777 F. Supp. 2d 1185
S.D. Iowa2011Background
- Mahaska Pork, L.P. owns hog buildings and is insured by Travelers under policy 700-7848C504-TIA-08 for the Barnes City building.
- A contractor pumped manure and tried to mix solids; equalizer openings clogged, preventing flow between pit compartments.
- After pumping, the southern compartments’ manure depths diverged, causing the divider wall to collapse and the first floor to cave in.
- Mahaska submitted a claim to Travelers; Travelers denied coverage on April 1, 2009.
- Mahaska filed suit June 15, 2009 in Iowa state court seeking declaratory relief and breach of contract; Travelers removed to federal court.
- Policy excludes collapse except under specified “Collapse” coverage, with several exceptions applicable to covered perils.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does policy cover collapse caused by weight of personal property? | Mahaska: weight of manure causes direct loss under policy. | Travelers: weight is not the intended cause of covered collapse. | No summary judgment; genuine facts on weight vs. lateral pressure remain. |
| Is there a genuine issue of material fact whether weight of manure caused the collapse? | Mahaska: experts disagree on weight’s effect; factual dispute exists. | Travelers: weight effects are a legal conclusion. | Yes, material facts unresolved; jury must decide proximate cause. |
| Is hidden decay a contributing cause, or is it abandoned, affecting coverage? | Mahaska originally pled hidden decay as cause. | Travelers: Mahaska abandoned hidden decay theory. | Summary judgment for Travelers on hidden decay theory; claim dismissed. |
| Does the policy’s design-defect exclusion bar recovery if design contributed to collapse? | Mahaska argues design defects may be a contributing factor. | Travelers raises design-defect exclusion as defense. | Not decided; issue not properly before court due to lack of motion on defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (S. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standard: genuine disputes require trial)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (S. Ct. 1986) (burden on moving party to show absence of genuine issue)
- Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Chubb Custom Ins. Co., 780 N.W.2d 735 (Iowa 2010) (policy interpretation; ambiguous vs. unambiguous language)
- Thomas v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 749 N.W.2d 678 (Iowa 2008) (policy interpretation and the role of the court in absence of extrinsic evidence)
- Lee v. Grinnell Mut. Reins. Co., 646 N.W.2d 403 (Iowa 2002) (interpretation of insurance contracts; parties’ intent controls)
- A.Y. McDonald Indus., Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 475 N.W.2d 607 (Iowa 1991) (ambiguaity standard for insurance contract terms)
- Swainston v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 774 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa 2009) (court’s approach to policy language and causation questions)