Amera-Seiki Corp. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 12-2739 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseIn an insurance coverage dispute with a policyholder, Cincinnati appealed the district court's adverse summary judgment rulings. The policyholder sought a claim of total loss for a vertical lathe that it purchased from a manufacturer in Taiwan and that was destroyed in Los Angeles. Cincinnati denied coverage, claiming that the coverage extension for newly acquired property did not apply. The court concluded that the extension of coverage to "any location you acquire" was ambiguous and, under Iowa law, the court construed that ambiguity in the policyholder's favor. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in awarding prejudgment interest under Iowa law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil case - Insurance. In action to cover the destruction of a lathe while in shipment from Taiwan, the Los Angeles terminal where the lathe fell constituted a location plaintiff "acquired" within the meaning of the newly acquired property coverage extension in the policy issued by Cincinnati; under Iowa law, the district court did not err in granting plaintiff pre-judgment interest from the date of the loss.
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.