PETCO Animal Supplies Stores, et al. v. Ins. Co. of North America, No. 12-2822 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePETCO sought a declaration that ICNA had to defend and indemnify PETCO in an underlying litigation with Medtronic. Medtronic sued PETCO after an aquarium heater it had purchased from PETCO malfunctioned and started a fire at a Medtronic plant. The district court granted ICNA's motion for summary judgment and PETCO appealed. At issue was whether the aquarium heater satisfied a condition precedent to coverage under the policy. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on the ground that PETCO failed to identify any mandatory or voluntary safety standard with which the heater complied.
Court Description: Civil case - Insurance. The district court did not err in finding that defendant was not obligated to defend or indemnify plaintiff in its underlying litigation with a customer who suffered losses in a fire started by an aquarium heater sold by plaintiff, as plaintiff failed to show that the heater complied with any mandatory or voluntary safety standards, a condition precedent to coverage.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.