Ritrama, Inc. v. HDI-Gerling Am. Ins. Co., No. 14-3392 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseBurlington purchased more than $8 million worth of cast vinyl film products from Ritrama to manufacture graphic decals for customers in the recreational vehicle (RV) industry. No later than early 2008, Burlington reported to Ritrama that RV owners were experiencing issues with the graphics. In September, 2008, Burlington sent Ritrama a spreadsheet detailing three claims for monetary damages based on the product failures, which totaled $53,219.37. The companies discussed settlement. In early 2009, Ritrama purchased a commercial general liability insurance policy from Gerling that provided coverage for claims made between March 31, 2009, and March 31, 2010. The policy did not define “claim.” On July 17, 2009, Ritrama advised its insurance agent of its issues with Burlington. The insurance agent sent a "notice of occurrence" to Gerling. Ritrama claims that the notice was not an acknowledgment of a claim, but merely a notification of a "customer having problems." Ritrama failed to meet Burlington's demands. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Gerling. Burlington demanded money in 2008 and, before inception of the Policy, Ritrama attempted to settle existing and future claims for damages based on the RV adhesive issues. Although these communications did not involve an attorney or expressly refer to litigation, Burlington clearly demanded compensation.
Court Description: Bye, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. Plaintiff was aware of defects in the vinyl products it supplied to one of its customers before the effective date of the policy in question and had received a demand for participation in the costs of repairing or replacing the products, and these facts were sufficient to constitute a claim; further, plaintiff's own records showed that it had considered these events as a claim and demand for payment of damages; since the claim preceded the effective date of the policy, there was no 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.