PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / General Liability / Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Mouthwash Tainted From Auto Cleanser Equipment

Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Mouthwash Tainted From Auto Cleanser Equipment

December 8, 2023 by Roben West

Applying well-settled Wisconsin law, a federal district court found that an insurer had no duty to indemnify an oral hygiene product manufacturer for tainted products after determining that the losses did not result from an “occurrence” under an excess liability policy.

The case, Sage Products LLC v. Federal Insurance Co., arose from a recall of single-use oral hygiene kits that were provided to hospitals and nursing homes. The supplier of the kits contracted with a manufacturer that provided the oral rinse solution used in the kits. When the manufacturer received a warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration requiring the removal and disposal of tainted kits due to the manufacturer’s process of producing the oral rinse solution with the same equipment that it uses to produce toxic car wash products, the supplier sued the manufacturer. While the supplier and manufacturer ultimately settled, the manufacturer assigned its rights under its excess liability policy to the supplier, which allegedly suffered millions in losses. The supplier filed suit against the manufacturer’s insurer, seeking $6 million in policy limits as compensation. In arguing that it was entitled to coverage, the supplier contended that both the incorporation of the oral rinse solution into the kits, and the eventual removal of the oral rinse solution from the kits, constituted occurrences under the policy. The court disagreed.

First, the court looked to the policy language. In pertinent part, the policy provided that the insurer was liable for property damage caused by an “occurrence,” which was, in turn, defined by the policy as an “accident.” The court then relied on previous courts’ interpretation of the word “accident,” which was derived from dictionary definitions, to determine its meaning — an unintentional or non-volitional act. In rejecting the argument that the incorporation of the oral rinse solution into the kits was an “occurrence,” the court likened the tainted oral rinse solution’s inclusion in the kits to a faulty workmanship scenario. And because settled Wisconsin law notes that faulty workmanship is not, in and of itself, an “occurrence,” and that installation is a part of workmanship, the court found that incorporation of the tainted oral rinse solution into the kits was not an “occurrence.”

The court also explained that the incorporation of the oral rinse solution was also not accidental; rather, it was intentional given the entire purpose of the relationship between the supplier and manufacturer in producing the kits. The court used the same reasoning in rejecting the supplier’s remaining argument that the eventual removal of the oral rinse solution from the kits constituted an “occurrence” under the policy. Because that, too, was an intentional and volitional act, and not an accident, the court found that the removal of the oral rinse solution from the kits was likewise not an “occurrence.”

Consequently, the court found that the supplier could not recover against the insurer because it failed to demonstrate that coverage had been triggered in the first instance given that the losses were not caused by an “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

“Common Sense Should Prevail” — Federal Court Recognizes Exception to “Eight-Corners Rule,” Allows Use of Undisputed Extrinsic Evidence to Preclude Duty to Defend

Next Article »

Kentucky Holds No Coverage for Malicious Prosecution Claim Under Policy Issued After Claimant’s Wrongful Arrest

About Roben West

Roben S. West is an associate at Carlton Fields in Atlanta, Georgia. Connect with Roben on LinkedIn.

Related Articles

  1. No Paying Over Slow Milk? Wisconsin Appellate Court Finds Intentional Act by Cattle Feed Supplier May Be “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy
  2. Shot Through the Heart, But the Excess Carrier Isn’t to Blame: Georgia Federal Court Finds Policy’s Broad Firearms Exclusion Bars Coverage
  3. Federal Court Refuses to Let Insured Shoot First, Seek Coverage Later
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person
  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle
  • Eighth Circuit Finds No Coverage Under “Ensuing Loss” Provision Under Arkansas Law

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing