Massachusetts High Court: Loss Prevention Cost Claim is Controlled by Policy Terms, Not Common Law

Massachusetts High Court: Loss Prevention Cost Claim is Controlled by Policy Terms, Not Common Law

Ken’s Charges

Ken’s Foods calculated that the costs associated with trying to keep operations from being suspended exceeded $2 million. The Georgia factory where Ken’s Foods manufactures its products never had to stop production as a result of its preventative efforts.

complete line of salad dressings and other culinary goods, generating “at least” $9.6 million in profits every month. 350 full-time workers at the plant receive a combined monthly salary of $1.6 million. Therefore, Ken’s Foods asserts that without its preventative efforts, it would have suffered losses greater than the $10 million coverage offered by its contract with Steadfast.

According to the policy’s “suspension of operations” coverage clause, Steadfast will cover “other loss” if the pollution event immediately results in a “suspension of operations.” The phrase “necessary partial or complete stoppage of “operations” at the “covered place” as a direct result of a “cleanup” mandated by “governmental authority”” is used to define the term.

3 of 5
Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse