BROADCASTS.com

b'

\\nWestlake Chemical Corporation (Westlake) tendered claims to Berkley \\nRegional Insurance Company (Berkley) and Zurich American Insurance \\nCompany (Zurich) seeking coverage for $16,000,000 in losses resulting \\nfrom the payment of fraudulent invoices for shipping bags used to export\\n Westlake\\u2019s products. \\n\\nBACKGROUND\\n\\nWestlake manufactures polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride products, \\nwhich it sells internationally. From 2007 until 2014, Westlake purchased\\n plastic shipping bags and other supplies to export its products from \\nJohn Tinkle ("Tinkle") through his company Tinkle Management Inc. \\n("TMI"), a supplier of shipping bags to chemical companies. TMI \\ndelivered Westlake\'s plastic shipping bags to a warehouse owned by \\nPackwell, Inc. ("Packwell"), a plastic bagging and logistics company, \\nand Packwell used the supplies to package and ship Westlake\'s chemical \\nproducts overseas. After the shipping supplies were delivered by TMI, \\nTinkle would submit an invoice to Westlake for payment of the supplies.\\n\\nIn April 2017, Tinkle pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 48 months in \\nprison and ordered to pay restitution to Westlake in the amount of \\n$15,633,403.98.\\n\\nINSURANCE CONTRACTS\\n\\nWestlake purchased a Commercial Crime Insurance Policy from Berkley that\\n provided coverage of $10,000,000 for each occurrence of computer fraud \\n("Berkley Policy") and a Crime Insurance Excess Policy from Zurich \\nAmerican Insurance Company that provided Westlake an additional \\n$5,000,000 in coverage ("Zurich Policy").\\n\\nBerkley Policy\\n\\nBerkley promised to \\u201cpay for loss of or damage to \\u2018money\\u2019, \\u2018securities\\u2019 \\nand \\u2018other property\\u2019 resulting directly from the use of any computer to \\nfraudulently cause a transfer of that property from inside the \\n\\u2018premises\\u2019 or \\u2018banking premises\\u2019: a. To a person (other than a \\n"messenger") outside those premises; or b. To a place outside those \\n\\u2018premises\\u2019.\\u201d\\n\\nZurich Policy\\n\\nThe Zurich Policy\'s "Insuring Clause" was excess of the Berkley Policy. \\nIn no event shall coverage under this policy be broader than coverage \\nunder the Berkley Policy. After Westlake discovered Tinkle\'s fraud in \\nOctober 2014, Westlake tendered timely notices of its discovery and \\nProof of Loss .\\n\\nDISCUSSION\\n\\nThe Insurers carried their burden to prove that coverage is excluded \\nunder the Policy. The Insurers argued that Tinkle was Westlake\'s \\n"authorized representative" and thus, whether or not the loss originated\\n from "Computer Fraud," Westlake\'s loss is excluded from coverage based \\non Section D.1.c of the Berkley Policy, which excludes coverage for \\n"Acts Of Employees, Managers, Directors, Trustees Or Representatives."\\n\\nAs part of its summary judgment evidence, the Insurers submitted \\ndeposition testimony from Westlake\'s Corporate Representative \\nChristopher Anderson ("Anderson"), Westlake\'s interrogatory responses, \\nand a letter from Westlake responding to Berkley\'s questions about \\nWestlake\'s loss prepared as part of the claims process. Relying on these\\n exhibits, the Insurers argue that "Westlake admit[ted] that Tinkle was \\nits \'authorized representative\' because Westlake admit[ted] that it \\nempowered [Tinkle] to act on its behalf." \\xa0\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nInsurance covers many risks of loss but no insurance policy covers every\\n possible risk of loss. Westlake trusted its supplier, Tinkle to act on \\nits behalf and deliver necessary shipping materials for Westlake to \\ndeliver its product to its customers. It was cheated by someone it \\ntrusted and who acted on its behalf. The exclusion was clear and \\nunambiguous and no matter how much Tinkle overcharged it did so with \\nauthority and was excluded. Westlake\'s only hope now is to recover on \\nthe restitution order which will be difficult for Mr. Tinkle to pay as \\nhe is in prison.\\n\\n