Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Maxum Indemnity Co. v. Wilson
Citations: 707 F. Supp. 2d 683; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5042Docket: Civil Action 3:09CV212TSL-JCS, 2:09CV87KS-MTP
Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi; January 21, 2010; Federal District Court
American Southern Insurance Company (ASIC) seeks a declaratory judgment against Jimmy Wilson, asserting that its commercial general liability policy does not cover damages from the collapse of a metal building Wilson constructed. The incident occurred in December 2008, three years after Wilson completed the building for Southern Specialty Foods and after ASIC's policies had expired (the last effective from July 15, 2006 to July 15, 2007). Southern Specialty Foods claims over $2 million in damages from Wilson. ASIC filed for summary judgment, arguing that the policy's coverage is limited to damages occurring during the policy period, referencing its provisions that define "property damage" as occurring only if it takes place during the policy term. The court agreed with ASIC, emphasizing that the damage occurred at the time of the building's collapse, not during its construction, thus no duty to defend or indemnify Wilson exists under the expired policies. The court referenced a relevant case to support its interpretation of the policy's timing provisions. Wilson argues that the 'property damage' pertains to alleged damage to a building during its construction in 2005, which falls within the policy period. However, there is no evidence that the building sustained any physical injury during that time. The loss claimed by Southern Specialty Foods, for which Wilson seeks indemnity, relates to the building's collapse in 2008, after the ASIC policy had expired. Consequently, as the only tangible damage occurred post-expiration, ASIC's policy does not cover the loss, leading to the granting of ASIC's motion for summary judgment. Wilson's current insurer, Maxum Indemnity Company, initiated a declaratory action against Wilson and others regarding the policy's recision and coverage determination on April 2, 2009, followed by ASIC's similar action on May 4, 2009, leading to the consolidation of these cases. Wilson's argument, presented indirectly in his motion to stay, asserts that ASIC must demonstrate that the occurrence leading to the collapse was outside the policy period. He contends that the timing of the 'occurrence' remains ambiguous, potentially linked to faulty construction or an unexpected snow event. However, Wilson's opposition is flawed for two reasons: he bears the burden of proving coverage under the policy, and the issue at hand is whether the claimed property damage occurred during the policy period, not whether an occurrence did.