News & Events
Skarzynski Marick Secures Victory With Eighth Circuit Holding No Duty To Defend Or Indemnify Insured Arising From Warehouse Collapse
Skarzynski Marick attorneys Michael Marick and Andrew Candela represented AXIS Surplus Insurance Company in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the summary judgment that AXIS has no duty to defend or indemnify its insured for multiple deaths arising from a tornado that struck an Amazon warehouse. The real estate developer of the warehouse, TriStar Companies LLC, sought its significant defense costs and indemnity under a policy issued by AXIS.
AXIS filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri seeking a declaration it had neither a duty to defend nor duty to indemnify TriStar. On February 10, 2023, the district court granted AXIS’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the suits against Tristar did not fall within coverage and, even if it had, would have been precluded by the completed-operations exclusion. The court held that coverage was limited to “Scheduled Locations”, specifically “all premises you own, rent or occupy….” The warehouse had a formal address when the policy incepted, was not contained within the schedule and, therefore, no coverage was afforded by the policy for that location. Moreover, the completed-operations exclusion applied because the loss took place after development had been completed and away from a premises owned or rented by the insured.
TriStar appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Michael Marick represented AXIS at oral argument. On March 4, 2024, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, noting TriStar did not “own, rent, or occupy” the warehouse when the policy came into force and, therefore, the various lawsuits could not even potentially fall within coverage.
AXIS filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri seeking a declaration it had neither a duty to defend nor duty to indemnify TriStar. On February 10, 2023, the district court granted AXIS’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the suits against Tristar did not fall within coverage and, even if it had, would have been precluded by the completed-operations exclusion. The court held that coverage was limited to “Scheduled Locations”, specifically “all premises you own, rent or occupy….” The warehouse had a formal address when the policy incepted, was not contained within the schedule and, therefore, no coverage was afforded by the policy for that location. Moreover, the completed-operations exclusion applied because the loss took place after development had been completed and away from a premises owned or rented by the insured.
TriStar appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Michael Marick represented AXIS at oral argument. On March 4, 2024, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, noting TriStar did not “own, rent, or occupy” the warehouse when the policy came into force and, therefore, the various lawsuits could not even potentially fall within coverage.