Loss of Inventory by Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy of Storage Facility Created a Compensable Loss

Barry Zalma

Jan 15, 2024

Transcript

BACKGROUND

From 2017 to 2021, defendant stored millions of bushels of soybeans at warehouses owned by non-party, Express Grain Terminals, LLC (“EGT”). In September 2021, upon the discovery by EGT’s lender that EGT had less inventory than it was reporting, EGT was forced into bankruptcy, resulting in the dispossession from StoneX of 2,780,000 bushels of soybeans subject to a determination by the bankruptcy court of various competing interests in the disposition of EGT’s assets.

Ultimately, in the bankruptcy proceedings, defendant recovered all but 502,315 bushels of soybeans. Defendant seeks coverage for the loss of these 502,315 bushels of soybeans.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must tender sufficient evidence to show the absence of any material issue of fact and the right to entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Courts have also recognized that summary judgment is a drastic remedy that deprives a litigant of his or her day in court. Therefore, the party opposing a motion for summary judgment is entitled to all favorable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence submitted.

DISCUSSION

In support of its motion defendant cites to the language of the insurance policy that provides that warehouse receipts, together with third-party inspection reports showing that the warehouse has sufficient goods to meet the insureds requirements, demonstrates the existence of an insurable interest.

Defendant contends that the warehouse receipts establish that EGT was in possession of the requisite number of soybeans to cover the amount of defendant’s soybeans. Further, inspection reports, prepared by independent inspectors, confirm that EGT maintained the appropriate number of soybeans to satisfy defendant’s stored amount. With respect to the date of the loss, defendant contends that September 2021 is the date when it became actually dispossessed based on the bankruptcy filing by EGT.

Specifically, plaintiffs contend that inspector indicating that “obligations to other depositors cannot be adequately verified […] therefore I am unable to make any certifications on these actual obligations and their effect regarding these inventories” creates an issue of fact as to whether the soybeans for which defendant seeks coverage were in existence.

CONCLUSION

The New York Court found that defendant established an actual loss as well as an ascertainable date of the loss, September 29, 2021. The Court declined to read terms into the policy that are not there, specifically that defendant was required to ascertain whether EGT had sufficient soybeans to satisfy all receipt-holders. The parties could have contracted to include those terms in the policy but did not.

The unrefuted evidence was that there were in fact a sufficient number of bushels of soybeans to satisfy defendants claim at the time EGT filed for bankruptcy, it follows that once EGT filed for bankruptcy defendant no longer had access to the soybeans, thus triggering the date of the loss.

Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on its first counterclaim is granted; and it is further Adjudged and Declared there is insurance coverage to cover the loss of 502,315 bushels of soybeans; and it is further Ordered that defendant’s motion for summary judgment on its second counterclaim is granted; and it is further adjudged and declared that plaintiffs have breached the underlying contract between the parties for refusing to provide coverage.

ZALMA OPINION

Since the evidence showed that there were enough soybeans to cover that deposited by the defendants when EGT was forced into bankruptcy the division of the assets by the court resulted in a loss to the defendants that was not excluded from the coverages provided by the Plaintiffs.