Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Midwest Environmental Resources International, LLC v. Colony Insurance Co.

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah Division

January 7, 2015

MIDWEST ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Successor in Interest to MIDWEST RAILCON PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THOMAS B. RUSSELL, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on two pending motions. First, Defendant Colony Insurance Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 37). Plaintiff Midwest Environmental Resources International, LLC, has responded (Docket No. 50). Second, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 42). Defendant has responded. (Docket No. 45). These matters are now ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the Court will DENY Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Midwest Environmental Resources International, LLC, ("MERI") owned a warehouse at 800 N. College Street in Fulton, Kentucky ("the property"). MERI placed insurance coverage on the property through the Defendant, Colony Insurance Company ("Colony"). MERI initiated this litigation, seeking a declaratory judgment that the insurance policy issued by Colony provides coverage for the claims that MERI asserted.

Unknown persons broke into the property and took copper wiring and electrical system components from the building, as well as causing damage to the door. Colony argues that there is no coverage for these losses because the commercial property insurance policy excludes coverage for any damage "caused by or resulting from theft." (Docket No. 37). Further, even if the damage were deemed to have resulted from vandalism, as MERI claims, Colony argues that there is still no coverage because the property was vacant under the policy's definition and vandalism is precluded as a cause of loss for vacant property. Id.

MERI argues that the damage to the property was at least in part due to vandalism, not theft. (Docket No. 50). Further, it argues that the property did not meet the definition of "vacant" and thus the damage due to vandalism is covered by the policy. Id.

Insurance policy

The policy contains the following provisions:

A. Covered Causes Of Loss

When Basic is shown in the Declarations, Covered Causes of Loss means the following:
...
8. Vandalism, meaning willful and malicious damage to, or destruction of, the described property.
We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from theft, except for building damage caused by the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.