Ohio Supreme Court rules for policyholder in contamination case

The Ohio Supreme Court dominated Wednesday that a metal solutions company is entitled to coverage for a contaminated products under its umbrella policy.

Niles, Ohio-dependent Ironics Inc. buys and sells metallic products and solutions, which include waste generated by metal mills and equivalent services, according to the ruling in Motorists Mutual Coverage Co. v. Ironics Inc. Ironics obtains a product or service referred to as tube scale in raw kind, processes it, then resells it.

In 2016, Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. ordered tube scale from Ironics to use as a coloring agent to make its containers amber or brown.

Immediately after applying the tube scale, while, Owens learned that “chrome stones” were embedded in the containers, growing the likelihood they would break and it experienced to scrap extra than 1,850 tons of glass containers.

On investigation, Ironics discovered the tube scale had been contaminated when its elements processor subcontracted the tube scale’s screening to a different firm. The product was contaminated with chrome stones when it fell to the ground, and it was then place back into the screening approach, according to courtroom documents.

In January 2017, Owens asserted promises against Ironics for breach of deal and warranties, among other claims. Ironics questioned its insurer, Columbus, Ohio-centered Motorists, to defend and indemnify it.

Motorists sought a declaratory judgment it had no obligation to protect and indemnity Motorists. A demo court docket held that neither Ironics’ business general plan nor its commercial umbrella coverage protected Owens’ statements and granted Motorists summary judgment in the situation.

A condition appeals courtroom agreed there was no coverage underneath the CGL policy but held Ironics was entitled to coverage less than its umbrella coverage.

The point out Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the appeals court ruling. “We reject Motorists’ argument that there was no ‘property damage’ in this situation. Underneath the simple language of the umbrella coverage, Owens’s claims towards Ironics are for ‘property damage,’” the ruling said.

The courtroom also concluded that Owens’ promises arose out of an “occurrence” less than the umbrella plan and that none of the plan exclusions utilized.

Attorneys in the case did not answer to requests for comment.