Ratajczak v. Beasley Solutions Ltd.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff-buyer’s RICO lawsuit against defendants-sellers of whey protein concentrate alleging that defendants altered said concentrate by adding urea to make it appear that protein levels in concentrate were higher than they actually were. Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of damages arising out of defendants’ misconduct. Fact that plaintiff claimed that it might be subject to future lawsuits from its customers arising out of defendants’ doctored product was too speculative to support claim for damages under RICO. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting intervening plaintiffs-insurers’ request for declaration that they had no duty to indemnify or defend defendants in any breach of warranty claim arising out of defendants’ alteration of concentrate since defendants’ adulteration of concentrate was deliberate act that did not fit within policy’s definition of “accident.” Too, defendants’ purchase of policy to indemnify them for loss caused by any non-fraudulent breach of warranties made to plaintiff did not require that insurer cover said losses where defendants had settled any relevant claims with plaintiff without insurance company’s knowledge.