PQ Corporation v. Lexington Insurance Co.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that damage to customer’s property that was stored in insured’s warehouse was covered under commercial warehouse liability policy issued by defendant. Defendant could properly refuse coverage because terms of policy required insured to produce either warehouse receipt, storage agreement or rate quotation in order for plaintiff‘s claim was covered under instant policy, and insured failed to produce said document(s). Ct. rejected plaintiff’s argument that bill of lading produced by insured was suitable substitute to documents listed in policy, or that other documents could reliably show how much of customer’s property was damaged at insured’s warehouse. Ct., though, rejected defendant’s alternative argument that it was not required to cover instant loss, because, contrary to terms of policy, insured had settled plaintiff’s claim without defendant’s consent, where Ct. noted that defendant had already informed insured that it was not going to cover plaintiff’s claim prior to time insured had settled claim with plaintiff.