Massachusetts Court of Appeals Precludes Coverage for Drink Bottles Despite “Loss of Use” Exception to “Faulty Workmanship” Exclusion in “All Risk” Policy

by K&L Gates LLP

Manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of food products face significant business and litigation risks associated with food contamination and recall issues. Policyholders in this chain of production should be aware that even when they believe they have purchased adequate coverage to respond and protect them in such situations, courts may not always agree and may instead deny coverage. H.P. Hood LLC v. Allianz Global Risks U.S. Ins. Co., No. 14–P–1605 (Mass. Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2015), is the most recent example, in which the Court of Appeals of Massachusetts affirmed a trial court’s decision that a first party “all risks” insurance policy containing a “faulty workmanship” exclusion precluded coverage for losses arising from the policyholder’s destruction of 1.8 million bottles of a specialty drink due to alleged problems with the bottle caps, which put the product at risk of spoilage. As discussed below, notwithstanding the strong arguments demonstrating that the Court reached the wrong conclusion, the decision serves as a cautionary tale to policyholders who have not critically evaluated their coverage program and filled in potential gaps by purchasing specialized food contamination coverage.

Background Facts
HP Hood, LLC (“Hood”), a processor and distributor of dairy products throughout the United States, manufactured a dairy based liquid product known as Myoplex [1] for Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”). Within the first month that Hood began production, several bottles of Myoplex failed contractually-required (but not FDA-required) quality assurance testing. Due to the quality assurance issue, Abbott declined to accept a production run of Myoplex, cancelled portions of upcoming production orders, and reduced the overall volume of Myoplex it would accept. Even though the product had not yet spoiled, Hood and Abbott agreed to destroy 1.8 million bottles of Myoplex on the grounds that the affected production run was no longer marketable. Ultimately, Hood discovered that the problem was due to the liner in the bottle caps becoming slippery over time, which affected the amount of optimal torque required to seal the bottles properly.

Hood sought coverage for its losses under a first party “all risks” insurance policy it had purchased from Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company (“Allianz”). Hood’s policy provided coverage for “all risks of direct physical loss or damage to Insured Property... provided such physical loss or damage occurs during the Policy Period.” The policy excluded losses arising from “faulty workmanship, material, construction or design, from any cause,” but included what is commonly known as an “ensuing loss” or “resulting loss” provision, which limited the reach of the exclusion to allow coverage for physical loss or damage resulting from faulty workmanship, material, construction or design. [2]

On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court held that under an “all risks” policy actual physical damage was unnecessary to trigger coverage, but ruled in Allianz’s favor that Hood's losses fell within two policy exclusions – the “faulty workmanship exclusion” and the “latent defect” exclusion. [3] Hood appealed.

The Court of Appeals Decision
In affirming, the Court’s ruling centered on the “faulty workmanship” exclusion. Specifically, the Court held that there was no coverage because the claimed losses were excluded under the “faulty workmanship” exclusion “whether that problem be viewed as one of faulty ‘material’ (the fact that the characteristics of the bottle cap liners changed as they aged), faulty ‘workmanship’ (the failure by Hood to apply the correct torque), or faulty ‘design’ (the fact that the bottling process did not take into account the changes to the liners as they aged).” [4]

Further, despite recognizing that the policy’s “ensuing loss” exception “raise[d] some interpretive challenges, and the case law reveal[ed] the frustration that judges have felt in trying to make sense of provisions that include such language”, [5] the Court rejected Hood’s argument that the “ensuing loss” provision, if not clearly providing coverage, was at least ambiguous and, therefore, should be read to provide Hood with coverage. [6] The Court concluded that the “problem with the bottle cap liners directly rendered the entire product unsaleable” such that the loss fell squarely within the faulty workmanship exclusion. [7]

Takeaways from Hood
The Hood case is subject to criticism from a policyholder’s perspective for a variety of reasons.

  • First, the Court’s reading of the policy rendered the “ensuing loss” exception illusory, which the Court should have recognized as not only impermissible but also a result Hood and Allianz would not have intended. [8]
  • Second, despite recognizing the interpretative issues surrounding the policy’s “ensuing loss” exception, the Court refused to apply the rule of interpreting ambiguities in Hood’s favor.  If it had done so, at the very least the Court would have found coverage for the “ensuing loss,” or loss of the diary product itself.
  • Third, if not relegated to its facts, insurers may attempt to utilize Hood to strip policyholder’s of their coverage in a wide variety of spoilage cases regardless of the presence of an “ensuing loss” exception that should restore coverage for at least the physical loss or damage not directly arising from faulty design or workmanship.

The net result is that Hood, and other similar decisions, leave policyholders in doubt as to whether their “all risks” policies are as broad as they appear. There are strong arguments in favor of coverage for Hood’s losses and in other jurisdictions, some, if not all, of Hood’s claimed losses would have been covered. In addition, under even slightly different facts, or even if the same facts were characterized differently, the Hood court may well have come to a different conclusion. The takeaway for policyholders is that “all risk” policies remain a potential source of coverage for product contamination and recall-related losses, That said, in order to maximize coverage for these losses, policyholders (and their coverage counsel) should carefully assess the relevant caselaw and facts surrounding their losses, and, where possible, argue for the application of law from jurisdictions which are more favorable on this subject.

It should be noted that the insurance industry also offers specialized food contamination policies which expressly cover, among other things, accidental product contamination, malicious product tampering, and product extortion demands. Although these policies should provide greater certainty of coverage for product contamination and recall related losses, they require the payment of additional premiums. Moreover, because such policies are generally unique to each insurer that writes them, it is imperative to carefully review the policy language to ensure that coverage gaps are filled. Finally, because entities involved in the chain of manufacturing and distribution are frequently added as an “Additional Insured” on each other’s policies, it is also necessary to review those policies to determine the scope of coverage provided. Therefore, companies should proactively review their coverage program, including any applicable “all risks” policies or food contamination / recall policies, with brokers or coverage counsel to guard against potentially substantial uninsured risks.


[1] Myoplex is a “shelf stable” beverage designed to require refrigeration only after its bottles are opened. To ensure Myoplex does not spoil before consumers open them, it must be manufactured and bottled under strict aseptic conditions, and its bottles must stay hermetically sealed.

[2] The “ensuing loss” provision provided: “This ‘policy’ does not cover the following, but if physical loss or damage not otherwise excluded by this ‘policy’ to Insured Property at Insured Location(s) results, then only such resulting physical loss or damage is covered by this ‘policy.’”

[3] H.P. Hood LLC v. Allianz Global Risks U.S. Ins. Co., No. 2010-04360 (Mass. Super. Ct. June 24, 2014). The trial court held that the “recall” exclusion was inapplicable.

[4] H.P. Hood LLC v. Allianz Global Risks U.S. Ins. Co., No. 14–P–1605, at *8 (Mass. Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2015).

[5] Id. at *9-*11 (citing Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal Dist. v. Imperial Cas. & Indem. Co., 857 F.2d 286, 288 (5th Cir. 1988) as commenting that “[a]t first glance, the exclusion at issue here appears to be self-contradictory gibberish.”) (internal quotations omitted).

[6] Id. at *11.

[7] The Court determined it need not determine whether the losses were excluded under the separate “latent defect” exclusion or whether the “recall” exclusion was inapplicable (as found by the trial court).

[8] Id. at *10 (recognizing same, but with respect to the “faulty workmanship” exclusion).

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© K&L Gates LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

K&L Gates LLP

K&L Gates LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.