Hallmark Specialty Insurance Company v. Kamflex Conveyor Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HALLMARK SPECIALTY INSURANCE Case No. 20-cv-05563-VC

COMPANY,

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

v. Re: Dkt. No.

KAMFLEX CONVEYOR

CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

The Eitel factors support entry of default judgment in this case. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986). Notably, exclusion m. of Kamflex’s insurance policy bars coverage. Exclusion m precludes coverage for “‘[p]roperty damage’ to ‘impaired property’ . . . arising out of: (1) A defect, deficiency, inadequacy or dangerous condition in ‘[the insured’s] product’ or ‘[the insured’s] work’; or (2) A delay or failure by [the insured] or anyone acting on [the insured’s] behalf to perform a contract or agreement in accordance with its terms.” Impaired property is elsewhere defined as tangible property “that cannot be used or is less useful because: a. It incorporates ‘[the insured’s] product’ or ‘[the insured’s] work’ that is known or thought to be defective, deficient, inadequate or dangerous; or b. [The insured] ha[s] failed to fulfill the terms of a contract or agreement . . . .” This is precisely what…