September 15, 2019

September 13, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 12, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Nautilus Survives Motion to Dismiss Property Claim for Business Losses Caused by Rogue Employee in China

In late 2008, Nautilus attempted to terminate the manager of its Shanghai subsidiary, Xu Xiaobin. But Mr. Xu refused to cooperate or turn over key items including the subsidiary's business license and "chop" (carved ink notary stamp), both of which are needed in order to conduct business in China. Mr. Xu even hired his own security detail to overpower the security that Nautilus' U.S. representative had hired to take control of the Shanghai office.

After its U.S. executives were unable to resolve the dispute, Nautilus had to shut down its operations and form a new Chinese subsidiary. That took about 9 months and Nautilus had to write off more than $1 million in accounts receivable for the original subsidiary. Nautilus sought coverage for these related expenses (employee severance, legal fees, etc.) from its property insurer, Allianz. Allianz denied coverage and, after Nautilus filed suit, Allianz moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Judge Benjamin Settle mostly denied Allianz's motion on March 8, 2012. In brief summary, Judge Settle ruled that:

The employee dishonest acts exclusion did not necessarily eliminate coverage because Mr. Xu may not have been an employee at the relevant point in time. In other words, Mr. Xu may have caused the damage after Nautilus terminated him, or at least attempted to do so.

The voluntary parting exclusion did not necessarily apply because there were facts to indicate that Mr. Xu took the property in question without Nautilus' consent or authorization.

The accounts receivable coverage provision is ambiguous such that it should be construed to provide coverage even though Nautilus' inability to collect on accounts was the result of its inability to prove that the underlying transactions occurred.

The direct physical loss requirement in the insuring agreement did not require a physical alteration to the condition of the property. Rather, it was sufficient that Nautilus contended that the equipment had been lost.

© 2002-2019 by Williams Kastner ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Darren A. Feider Attorney Williams Kastner Law Firm
Member

Darren Feider is a Member in the Seattle office. His practice involves general employment litigation of wrongful discharge and discrimination claims, the drafting of employment and consulting contracts, non-compete agreements and severance packages for both employees and employers, and conducting investigations for private and public employers in response to EEOC and Washington State Human Rights Commission complaints. He has represented employers in unpaid wage actions. He also handles general commercial litigation.  

Experience

...
206-233-2906