Macheca Transport Co., et al. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins., No. 10-1482 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseAppellants sued appellee seeking insurance coverage for damages resulting from a pipe rupture in appellants' refrigerated warehouse. Appellants appealed the district court's grant of appellee's motion for summary judgment on appellants' first coverage theory and the dismissal of appellants' vexatious refusal to pay claim. Appellants also raised several claims of error with respect to the second theory of coverage submitted to the jury, including a claim of instructional error. The court held that the district court erred in adopting the restrictive definition of "collapse" discussed by the Missouri Court of Appeals in Williams v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., Eaglestein v. Pac. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., and Heintz v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., because none of those cases addressed the meaning of the term "collapse" when used in conjunction with the expansive definition of the term "buildings" used in this policy. As a result, the district court erred in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment. The court also held that the district court erred when it determined the weight of ice on the refrigerated pipes did not constitute a specified cause of loss under the terms of the policy. The court further held that it was unnecessary to address the claims appellants appealed with respect to alleged trial errors because the only theory of coverage submitted to the jury was appellants' "weight of ice" coverage claim and appellants were entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under that theory. The court finally affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the vexatious refusal to pay claim where the district court correctly determined that appellee could insist upon a judicial determination of certain questions without being penalized for a vexatious refusal to pay claim.
Court Description: Civil case - Insurance. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Macheca Transp. Co. V. Phila. Indem. Inc. Co., 463 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2006). The district court erred in adopting the restrictive definition of "collapse" discussed by the Missouri Court of Appeals in a series of cases as none of those cases addressed the meaning of the term when used in conjunction with the expansive definition of the term "buildings" used in the policy at issue; as a result, the court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that the loss was covered under the policy's collapse provisions; the district court also erred in determining that the weight of ice on refrigerated pipes did not constitute a specified cause of loss under the terms of the policy; plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on liability under its weight-of- ice claim because the weight of ice was a specified cause of loss; district court did not err in granting summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's vexatious refusal to pay claim.
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.