What Constitutes ‘Physical Loss’ for Property Insurance?

by Zelle LLP

Insurance Law360
April 4, 2016

In determining whether a property insurance policy responds to a loss, the fundamental, threshold question to be answered is whether or not the policyholder sustained “physical loss or damage” to insured property. In the absence of “physical loss or damage,” property insurance does not respond.

In the context of claims where a policyholder alleges loss or damage to food or beverage products, the question of whether the product has sustained “direct physical loss or damage” can be particularly thorny. Food and beverage manufacturers facing economic losses arising out of the “loss” of products have strong incentives to argue that something less than actual, physical, present direct physical loss or damage triggers coverage. For instance, some manufacturers have argued that the inability to distribute or sell products, even for reasons not arising out of any physical loss or destruction, constitutes qualifying loss or damage. Others have argued that the potential for future physical loss or damage triggers property coverage. A key problem with these arguments, however, is that they seek to read the word “physical” right out of policies.

In recent years, several courts construing liability policies have declined to find coverage in cases involving food products and other products intended for human consumption where physical loss, damage, or injury was not present. Just this month, Wisconsin’s highest court determined that the incorporation of the incorrect species of bacteria into probiotic supplement tablets did not constitute “physical injury to tangible property” or “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.[1] Similarly, a federal court sitting in California held that there was no “physical injury to tangible property” triggering coverage under a liability policy where cans of tomatoes were pulled from distribution because of a “‘risk’ that they would develop problems” at some point in the future.[2]

While these cases addressed the “physical” loss or damage in the context of liability coverage, a recent Massachusetts case suggests that the same analysis applies in the property insurance context. In HP Hood LLC v. Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company, a three-judge panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of a property insurer, holding that Hood’s policy excluded coverage for a claimed loss of 1.8 million bottles of Myoplex, a dairy-based, aseptically-packaged beverage product formulated and bottled by Hood.[3] In January of this year, the Commonwealth’s Supreme Judicial Court declined to grant Hood’s request for further appellate review, and the Hood case now stands as one of a small number of decisions across the country that have addressed the availability of property insurance coverage for product-related quality issues in the context of food and beverage manufacturing.

In Hood, the policyholder sought coverage under a property insurance policy for claimed product losses arising out of a Myoplex packaging run that did not go as planned. Two days into the May 2009 run, Hood observed that a bottle that had been filled and sealed by its sophisticated “smart” filler machine failed a “secure seal test.” Hood used the elective “SST,” a destructive test performed by puncturing and pressurizing tested bottles, as a means of predicting whether the bottles’ hermetic seals might fail at some point in the future upon being exposed to the rigors of commerce. Concluding that the SST failure was isolated, Hood allowed the run to continue. Later in the run, Hood experienced additional SST failures and subsequently halted production. After conducting additional testing, which yielded additional SST failures, Hood determined that it could not identify through nondestructive means which bottles, if tested, would fail SSTs. Together with its business partner, with whom Hood had contracted to formulate and package the Myoplex, Hood determined that all 1.8 million bottles packaged during the May run were unsalable. Hood later destroyed the entire run.

After an extensive, months-long investigation, Hood concluded that the cause of the SST failures was a defect in the bottles’ caps, which had been purchased from a third-party supplier. The cap defect involved the degradation of lubricant in the caps’ lining over time which affected the amount of torque needed to apply the caps. A small number of caps were applied with an amount of torque insufficient to achieve a hermetic seal that would withstand the pressure applied during SST testing.

Notably, the SST was not part of Hood’s U.S. Food and Drug Administration-mandated testing protocol and was not recognized by authorities as a criterion for determining whether the bottles’ hermetic seals were intact for purposes of releasing them for sale. In fact, every Myoplex bottle that was tested passed FDA-mandated seal integrity tests, and Hood’s own process authority (its liaison with the FDA) concluded that the Myoplex packaged during the May 2009 run could have been released to normal distribution. Further, post-packaging testing and visual inspections revealed that the Myoplex liquid had been formulated properly and did not become contaminated. Nevertheless, Hood made a business decision not to sell the output from the ill-fated run.

The policy at issue in Hood provided coverage for “all risks of direct physical loss or damage” to insured property “provided that such physical loss or damage occurs during the policy period.” In the context of cross-motions for summary judgment, Allianz argued that Hood had not satisfied its threshold burden to establish coverage under the policy because nothing “happened” to the Myoplex; that is, the insured property at issue had not been worked upon by any external force that altered the condition of the property. To the contrary, the Myoplex had rolled off the bottling line in a defective condition and did not change. Moreover, neither the Myoplex liquid nor its packaging had been harmed in any way. Further, Allianz argued that, at most, Hood alleged only the unrealized potential that at some point in the future, the bottles’ hermetic seals might have failed when released to commerce. Allianz argued that the risk of a potential future loss did not satisfy the policy’s requirement of actual, direct physical loss or damage. For its part, Hood urged that, particularly in the context of claimed food and/or beverage product losses, something short of actual physical loss or damage, including the “unsaleability” of a product, was sufficient to trigger coverage.

While the Superior Court effectively rejected the notion that “unsaleability” constituted “direct physical loss or damage,” the court concluded that the risk that the bottles’ seals may have failed in the future was sufficient to give rise to coverage in the first instance. In so holding, the court, adopting Hood’s interpretation of the policy’s “all risk” language, reasoned that since the policy covered “all risks of physical loss or damage,” the risk of potential future damage came within the policy’s coverage.

Although the Appeals Court did not decide the issue of whether Hood had established “direct physical loss or damage” under the policy, the panel very clearly rejected the notion that so-called “all risks” policies cover all losses, including those where there is no actual physical loss or damage:

Hood additionally argues that the policy was intended to cover increased risk of future physical loss or damage, not merely actual physical loss or damage that occurs within the policy period. That argument, which the motion judge seems to have accepted, is at odds with the [policy] language ... The reference in that language to “all risks” being covered does not change that conclusion, because in this context the reference signifies that the policy was intended to cover property damage whatever its cause (subject to exclusion).[4]

The Appeals Court is not alone in suggesting that “all risks” language does not dispense with the requirement that an insured establish “direct physical loss or damage” within the policy period. Another court applying Massachusetts law concluded that “[i]t is impossible to read the [‘all risks’] insurance policy as providing coverage for ‘risk’ in the absence of a ‘damage.”’[5] Together, Hood and Tocci demonstrate that so-called “all risk” policies do not cover mere unrealized “risks in the air.” Instead, they cover actual, physical damage that comes to fruition during the policy period.

Hood is a significant decision for a number of reasons, including its observations with respect to what constitutes physical loss or damage in the food and beverage context. Given the paucity of case law addressing fundamental coverage issues in the context of claimed food and beverage product losses, it is likely that Hood’s impact will be felt in jurisdictions across the country.

DISCLAIMER: Heres represented Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Co. in Hood LLP v. Allianz Global.

[1] Wisconsin Pharmacal Co. LLC v. Nebraska Cultures of California Inc., Nos. 2013AP613, 2013AP687, (Wis. Mar. 1, 2016).

[2] Silgan Containers LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., No. C 09-5971 RS, (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2011), reversed and remanded on other grounds, 543 Fed. Appx. 635 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2013).

[3] 39 N.E.3d 769 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015).

[4] Hood, 39 N.E.3d at 772 n.2.

[5] Tocci Bldg. Corp. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 659 F. Supp. 2d 251, 259 (D. Mass. 2009).


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.

© Zelle LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Zelle  LLP

Zelle 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 info@jdsupra.com. 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: info@jdsupra.com.

- 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.