Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Pennbarr Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America

Pennbarr Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

February 11, 1992, Argued ; September 25, 1992, Filed

Nos. 91-5607, 91-5608, 91-5642

Opinion

 [*146]  OPINION OF THE COURT

ROTH, Circuit Judge: 

This appeal requires us to interpret the indemnity period of a business interruption insurance policy. Appellees, Remington Rand Corporation, Delaware, and its wholly owned subsidiary Remington Rand Corporation, New Jersey, (collectively "Remington") 1 brought suit against appellant, the Insurance Company of North America ("INA"), for recovery of lost profits and royalties allegedly due and owing under a business interruption insurance policy procured from INA in December of 1979. The case was tried before a jury, and a verdict was rendered in favor of Remington. INA appeals the district court's denial of its pre-trial motion for summary [**2]  judgment, arguing that as a matter of law Remington's alleged lost profits were not covered under the clear policy language. 2 We agree and  [*147]  will reverse the district court's summary judgment decision.

During 1980 and 1981 Remington Rand New Jersey was in the business of selling electromechanical typewriters, under the Remington Rand logo, to a network of dealers, government entities, and other customers. Remington Rand Delaware, as the parent company, collected royalties on the sale and production of these typewriters. The Remington companies [**3]  also included two wholly owned subsidiaries: Remington Rand Business Systems B.V., in DenBosch, Holland, and Remington Systems Italiana, S.P.A., in Naples, Italy. All typewriters sold by Remington New Jersey were manufactured at these two sites: the Naples plant produced virtually all typewriters sold in Remington's North American market, while the DenBosch plant produced typewriters for sale in Remington's other markets.

The business interruption insurance policy at issue in this case was negotiated with INA on Remington's behalf by Remington's broker and insurance consultant. The parties agree that the goal of these negotiations was to create an insurance program covering all of the related Remington companies, including the Italian and Dutch subsidiaries. The negotiations culminated in Remington's purchase of a policy of business interruption insurance from INA for a one-year period ending December 1, 1980, with a liability limit of two million dollars. This policy was later renewed for one additional year, with an increased liability limit of six million dollars.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

976 F.2d 145 *; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 23626 **

PENNBARR CORP.; KILBARR CORP. Appellants in 91-5607 v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Appellant in 91-5608; PENNBARR CORP.; KILBARR CORP. v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; Pennbarr Corporation and Kilbarr Corporation, formerly Remington Rand Corporation-New Jersey and Remington Rand Corporation-Delaware, Appellants in 91-5642

Subsequent History: Petition for Rehearing Denied October 21, 1992, Reported at 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 27505.

Prior History:  [**1]  On Appeal From the United States District Court For the District of New Jersey. (D.C. Civil Action No. 84-4067)

CORE TERMS

interruption, indemnity, inventory, typewriters, sales, insured, contributing, earthquakes, ambiguous, business interruption, losses, district court, resumption, business interruption insurance, subsidiaries, insured peril, coverage, parties, plant, clear language, negotiations, damaged, summary judgment, matter of law, summary judgment motion, obligations, properties, resumed, repair, terms

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Summary Judgment, Appellate Review, General Overview, Standards of Review, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Opposing Materials, Contracts Law, Contract Interpretation, Ambiguities & Contra Proferentem, Burdens of Proof, Defenses, Ambiguities & Mistakes, Evidence, Preliminary Questions, Admissibility of Evidence, Insurance Law, Claim, Contract & Practice Issues, Policy Interpretation, Ambiguous Terms, Types of Insurance, Business Insurance, Business Interruption Insurance, Operation & Premises, Parol Evidence, Extrinsic Evidence, Entire Contract, Time Limitations, Design & Purpose, Unambiguous Terms