Source Food Technology, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
465 F.3d 834, 2006 WL 2920651, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 25525 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government embargo or regulation that prevents an insured from accessing or using its property does not constitute a "direct physical loss to property" under a business interruption insurance policy if the property itself is not physically altered, damaged, or contaminated.
Facts:
- Source Food Technology, Inc. ('Source Food') sold a cooking oil product made from beef tallow with the cholesterol removed.
- Source Food's sole supplier, Hubbert's Industries, was located in Ontario, Canada.
- On May 20, 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture ('USDA') prohibited the importation of Canadian beef products after a cow in Canada tested positive for 'mad cow disease.'
- Just before the ban, a truck was loaded with Source Food's manufactured and packaged beef product in Canada, ready for shipment to the U.S.
- The beef product itself was not contaminated by mad cow disease or physically damaged in any way.
- Due to the USDA embargo, the product could not be shipped across the border, preventing Source Food from accessing and selling it.
- As a result, Source Food was unable to fill orders for its customers, leading to the early termination of a major contract with Casey's General Store, Inc.
Procedural Posture:
- Source Food submitted a claim to its insurer, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company ('USF&G'), for business interruption losses, which USF&G denied.
- Source Food sued USF&G for breach of contract in a Minnesota state trial court.
- The state court denied Source Food's motion for summary judgment but held that Source Food had stated a legally sufficient claim.
- After other parties were dismissed, USF&G removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on the basis of diversity of citizenship.
- The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of USF&G, ruling that Source Food had not suffered a 'direct physical loss to property.'
- Source Food (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with USF&G as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a government order prohibiting the importation of an insured's goods, which renders the goods unusable for their intended purpose but does not physically alter or contaminate them, constitute a 'direct physical loss to property' sufficient to trigger coverage under a business interruption insurance policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Gruender, Circuit Judge.
No. A government order prohibiting the importation of an insured's goods does not constitute a 'direct physical loss to property' when the goods themselves are not physically altered or contaminated. The court held that the plain language of the insurance policy requires a 'physical' loss, meaning a tangible, corporeal alteration or contamination of the property itself. Loss of use, function, or access due to external government action, without any corresponding physical change to the property, is insufficient to trigger coverage. The court distinguished prior cases where coverage was found because they involved actual physical contamination, such as asbestos fibers in a building or unapproved pesticides on oats. By contrast, Source Food conceded its beef product was physically unharmed. The court concluded that to interpret the situation as a 'physical loss' would render the word 'physical' in the contract meaningless.
Analysis:
This decision strictly interprets the phrase 'direct physical loss' in commercial insurance policies, establishing that mere loss of use or economic value due to government regulation is not a covered peril. It solidifies the principle that for business interruption coverage to apply under such clauses, there must be a tangible, physical impact on the insured property. This precedent significantly narrows the scope of coverage for businesses affected by quarantines, embargoes, or other regulatory actions that don't physically damage property, forcing insureds to demonstrate an actual physical change rather than just an inability to access or market their goods. The case's reasoning became influential in later contexts, such as the COVID-19 pandemic business interruption lawsuits.
