Shaver Transportation Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 481 F. Supp. 892, 1980 AMC 393 (1979)

Facts

  • Shaver Transportation Company (Shaver), a barge operator, contracted with Weyerhaeuser Company (Weyerhaeuser) to transport liquid caustic soda from Weyerhaeuser to the buyer, GATX.
  • Shaver arranged a marine open cargo insurance policy issued by The Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers) for the shipment. The policy was written on an enumerated-perils basis (including standard marine perils and additional “specially to cover” clauses), rather than an all-risk form.
  • The barge used for the first shipment had previously carried tallow.
  • During loading, Shaver loaded the caustic soda through the barge’s input lines that had not been properly cleaned after the tallow carriage.
  • Residual tallow in the lines contaminated the caustic soda, making it unfit for GATX’s intended use.
  • GATX refused to accept delivery because of the contamination.
  • The barge returned to Shaver’s dock with the cargo still aboard; Shaver heated the cargo to prevent it from solidifying while deciding how to handle the rejected shipment.
  • Shaver notified Travelers through its broker, Johnson & Higgins, and was advised that the contamination did not appear to be a recoverable loss under the policy.
  • The contaminated cargo was ultimately removed by a chemical-salvage company.
  • Shaver and Weyerhaeuser claimed losses tied to the diminished value of the shipment (net of salvage) and related handling costs (including heating and repairs to equipment damaged by corrosion).
  • Shaver and Weyerhaeuser sued Travelers in federal district court seeking coverage under the marine cargo policy.

Issues

  1. Whether contamination of caustic soda during loading from residual tallow in unclean cargo lines constitutes a covered loss under the policy’s “perils of the seas”/standard marine perils language.
  2. Whether the policy’s shore-related coverage provision applies to contamination occurring during loading operations.
  3. Whether the policy’s Inchmaree-type coverage (addressing certain accidents and negligence categories) covers contamination caused by Shaver’s failure to clean the loading system.
  4. Whether a separate negligence clause provides coverage for a loss that otherwise does not fall within the enumerated perils.

Decision

  • The court held the contamination loss was not covered under the policy’s perils-of-the-seas or other standard marine perils provisions.
  • The court held the shore-related clause did not apply because the loss was contamination during loading, not a shore risk of the type described by that clause.
  • The court held the Inchmaree-type provision did not extend coverage to this kind of contamination from the insured’s loading procedures; reading it that broadly would effectively convert the limited, enumerated-perils policy into all-risk coverage.
  • The court held the negligence clause did not create stand-alone all-risk protection and did not bring the loss within coverage where the underlying loss type was outside the policy’s covered risks.
  • Judgment was entered for Travelers, denying recovery.
  • An enumerated-perils marine cargo policy covers only the risks specified in the contract; the insured must show the loss fits within a covered peril.
  • “Perils of the seas” and standard marine perils generally require a fortuitous marine casualty; contamination from an insured’s failure to clean loading lines is treated as an operational loading problem, not a covered sea peril.
  • Clauses that extend coverage for certain accidents or negligence (including Inchmaree-type language) are read in the setting of the whole policy and do not automatically turn a limited perils policy into all-risk coverage.
  • A negligence clause typically does not supply coverage by itself when the loss does not fall within the policy’s covered categories; negligence is not a substitute for a covered peril.
  • Policy interpretation looks to the contract language and the coverage the parties chose; selecting a limited form of coverage matters when deciding whether a claimed loss is within the bargain.

Conclusion

The district court denied coverage for a shipment of caustic soda contaminated during loading by residual tallow in unclean barge lines, holding that the loss did not fall within any enumerated-peril, shore-related, Inchmaree-type, or negligence provision of the marine cargo policy, and entered judgment for Travelers.