Photo credit : www.dogbreedinfo.com
Understand
that the tag "bull" was applied because of the dog's use in the sport
of bull baiting. This entailed the setting of dogs (after placing wagers on
each dog) onto a tethered bull. The dog that grabbed the bull by the nose and
pinned it to the ground would be the victor. It was common for a bull to maim
or kill several dogs at such an event, either by goring, tossing, or trampling.
Over the centuries, dogs used for bull-baiting developed the stocky bodies and
massive heads and jaws that typify the breed as well as a ferocious and savage
temperament. Bull-baiting, along with bear-baiting, reached the peak of its
popularity in England in the early 1800s until they were both made illegal by
the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835. Read
that despite slow maturation, bulldogs' lives are relatively short. At five to
six years of age they are starting to show signs of aging.
A couple of years ago, there was an
interesting case in British Columbia – on a product – which scared the Insurers
providing CGL (Commercial General liability) that they may end up compensating
for unusable products too.
Here,
the reference to bulldog is not to the breed, but to a product – in fact a
bag. The case refers to a plastic bag
manufacturer, Bulldog Bag Ltd, which provided more than 1 million printed
plastic bags to a specified customer who
used Bulldog's bags for its soil and
manure business. Often we encounter a debate in Marine Cargo insurance on
whether the bags [or the packing] is covered and whether damage to external
packing would render the commodity inside damaged …..
As
could happen the Manure producer, found that in some of the bags, the
manufacturer’s label printed faded and ran off, making the labels
illegible. The bags could not be used
and replacements were sought. Bulldog
did provide for replacements and the Mfr. transferred the contents from the
defective bags to new bags preparing them for sale. They claimed the value from the bag manufacturer
who inturn claimed it on their Insurers.
Bulldog’s claim was for the content transfer cost plus the value of soil and manure contained in the
defective bags that were lost or destroyed in the process. Bulldog did not
claim for the cost of replacing the defective bags.
The CGL policy held by Bulldog offered coverage for property damage due to an
"accident" or "occurrence". The policy defined 'property
damage' as "physical injury to or physical destruction of tangible
property, including loss of use thereof, or loss of use of tangible property that
has not been physically injured or destroyed".
The Insurers contended that only
physical injury or damage to tangible property was to the bags themselves,
which were Bulldog's own property and work product. The other costs incurred were attributable to pure
economic loss, which Insurance did not cover.
At
trial level, the court ruled that Bulldog's policy covered only the value of
the lost or destroyed soil and manure contained in the defective bags. This
left Bulldog having to take care of a huge
loss by themselves. In between, in
another case involving a building contractor, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled
that the claim for physical damage for
the construction defects to its housing developments was covered by its
commercial general liability policy. This changed the interpretation of CGL in
bulldog case.
The court of appeal held that the work
product exclusion did not apply. The court distinguished between a claim for
loss of use and a loss flowing from a loss of use (eg, the transfer and
recovery costs of the manure and soil resulting from the loss of use of the
bags). Because the claim was not for "loss of use" of Bulldog's bags,
but rather for the cost of salvaging and transferring the manure and soil,
those costs were determined not to be excluded from coverage under the policy.
With
regards – S. Sampathkumar
29th Jan 2015.
