The Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Becker Warehouse, Inc. and Becker Transportation, Inc.

Becker Warehouse, Inc., and Becker Transportation, Inc. (col-lectively
Becker), own a warehouse where food products owned
by various entities are stored. While constructing an addition to
Becker’s warehouse, Stoetzel & Son, Inc., applied a sealant
called Kure-N-Seal to the concrete floor. The owners of the food
products filed lawsuits against Becker alleging that xylene fumes
from the Kure-N-Seal contaminated their food products. Becker
sought indemnity and defense from its insurer, the appellee, The
Cincinnati Insurance Company (Cincinnati). Cincinnati filed a
petition for declaratory judgment in the district court, seeking a
declaration that Becker’s insurance policy does not provide cov-erage
for the alleged contamination and that Cincinnati has no
obligation to defend Becker. Both parties filed motions for sum-mary
judgment; the district court sustained Cincinnati’s motion
and overruled Becker’s. Because Cincinnati’s insurance policy is
not ambiguous and excludes coverage for Becker’s claim, we
affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of Cincinnati.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text
of the Court's opinion.

The compensation court erred in concluding that § 48-137
applied to the instant case; instead, Thornton’s petition was prop-erly
dismissed because his claim was barred by § 48-140. How-ever,
a proper result will not be reversed merely because it was
reached for the wrong reasons. Gestring v. Mary Lanning
Memorial Hosp., 259 Neb. 905, 613 N.W.2d 440 (2000). Since
the compensation court reached the right result, albeit for the
wrong reasons, the order of the review panel affirming the judg-ment
of the compensation court is affirmed.

Unknown

Unknown

Reported by Kent Morlan