Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

A-1 Transmission Automotive Technology, Inc v. Amco Insurance Company

April 27, 2012

A-1 TRANSMISSION AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

After consideration of Defendant AMCO Insurance Company's ("Defendant") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [43], this Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

1. Defendant issued A-1 Transmission Automotive Technology, Inc. ("Plaintiff") a Premier Businessowners policy ("the Policy"), policy no. ACP BPA 7851179200, effective November 2, 2007 to November 2, 2008, covering a commercial building at which A-1 performed auto repairs and smog-checks and covering business personal property ("BPP"). Decl. of Melton, ¶ 2; Compendium of Exhibits ("COE") Ex. 1.

2. During the policy period, the Policy covered the costs for building replacement, business personal property, potential loss of business income ("Business Income") due to an accident, any extra expenses ("Extra Expenses") that may occur during restoration, and other miscellaneous costs. Decl. of Melton, ¶ 2; COE Ex. 1.

3. The Policy, however, carried policy limits of:

(1) $617,300 plus 6% inflation for building replacement, (2) $61,400 plus 2.9% inflation for business personal property, (3) $10,000 for increased construction costs, (4) $25,000 for debris removal, and

(5) $10,000 for actual costs incurred to comply with enforcement of ordinance or law in the course of any repair efforts by Plaintiff. Decl. of Melton, ¶ 2; COE Ex. 1.

4. The Policy did not have any monetary limitations for Business Income but did limit compensation to actual loss of Business Income that occurs within 12 months after an accident. For Extra Expenses, the Policy provided that Defendant will reimburse Plaintiff for Extra Expenses incurred to avoid or minimize suspension of operations and to continue operations. Decl. of Melton, ¶ 2; COE Ex. 1.

5. Defendant has an obligation to reimburse Plaintiff for Extra Expenses incurred (1) to repair or replace property or (2) to restore lost information on damaged valuable papers and records. The Policy provides, however, that Extra Expenses are only paid to Plaintiff to the extent that the Extra Expense incurred by Plaintiff reduces the amount otherwise payable as Extra Expenses or Business Income. Decl. of Melton, ¶ 2; COE Ex. 1.

6. On January 18, 2008, Plaintiff sustained a substantial partial fire loss at its garage, and Defendant commenced a claim investigation on the same date. Decl. of Melton, ¶ 3.

7. On January 21, 2008, Defendant issued Plaintiff a $25,000 advance to compensate for business personal property. Within the first week of the loss, Defendant's claim adjuster, David Melton ("Melton"), was working with Plaintiff's public adjuster ("PA"), David Skipton, to facilitate emergency shoring and repairs required by authorities to allow entry to the red-tagged building and to provide temporary power. Decl. of Melton, ¶ 3.

8. On January 29, 2008, Melton took the recorded statement of Plaintiff's president, David Krattenmaker who claimed Plaintiff grossed $1 million annually. Decl. of Melton, ¶ 4.

9. On the same day, Defendant then advanced $50,000 under the Business Income coverage and obtained an agreed scope of repair. Decl. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.