In a November 14, 2011 decision by Justice Oing, the court denied both the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s motions for summary judgment. Quoizel, in the business of manufacturing lighting and home décor accessories, brought suit against Hartford, its commercial liability insurance provider, after a sprinkler system leak damaged its South Carolina warehouse and inventory therein. Quoizel argued that it was a manufacturer of the damaged inventory since it had an ownership interest in the Chinese factories where it was manufactured. Therefore, Quoizel argued, under the policy Hartford owed it additional amounts, representing the selling price value of the damaged inventory, beyond the replacement cost value of the damaged inventory, which had already been paid and accepted. The court denied Quoizel’s motion holding that although it was clear under the circumstances that “Quoizel ha[d] some relationship” with the Chinese factories, factual issues existed with respect to whether those “relationships [we]re sufficient to support a finding that Quoizel ha[d] ownership interests for it to be deemed a de facto manufacturer of the damaged inventory.” In its own motion for summary judgment, Hartford argued that the fact that the damaged inventory was set forth in purchase orders was conclusive proof Quoizel was not a manufacturer. The court found this argument unavailing and denied the motion.
Quoizel, Inc. v Hartford Fire Ins. Co., Sup Ct, New York County, November 14, 2011, Oing, J, Index No. 601321/2009