The insureds' claim for loss of cattle and lost milk production was covered under the policy. Chatelain v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206621 (D. Or. Dec. 15, 2017).
The insureds leased their dairy farm to the Brauns. At the time of the lease, the dairy farm had 230 milking cows, 166 heifers, two bulls, and all equipment necessary to operate a dairy. The Brauns violated their lease in November 2013, and the insureds moved back on the farm. On December 20, 2013, the first time milking their cows after returning to the farm, the insureds noticed that 113 milking cows and 100 heifers were missing. They also noticed that several pieces of equipment were missing and that substantial damage had been done to the farm.
The insureds sued the Brauns and filed a claim with Country Mutual. When the claim was denied, the insureds sued Country Mutual. A jury awarded the insureds $793,375 in damages against Country Mutual for stolen property, stolen livestock, loss of milk production, damages to structures and vandalism. Country Mutual filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the insureds did not prove an "occurrence" of theft took place during the policy period and that the cows were stolen. Country Mutual further argued that the policy did not cover lost milk production.
The insureds put forth evidence that the Brauns took the cows and tractors when they vacated the property in December 2013. There was also evidence that the Brauns sold the tractors. This evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the cows and tractors were stolen during the relevant policy period of February 2013 -2014. The motion for judgment as a matter of law was denied on this issue.
There was also sufficient evidence presented at trial that 113 cows and 100 heifers were missing from the minimum herd number stated in the Farm Lease on December 20, 2013, and that the Brauns took the cattle. This evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the Brauns' actions constituted theft.
Finally, the court found that the policy covered the value of not only the cows, but other losses stemming from the stolen cows. The policy stated, "we insure covered property against loss caused by the following perils," including "theft." It was unclear whether the policy narrowly limited recover to the value of the stolen property, i.e., cows, or included other losses resulting from the theft of the cows. Because the provision was ambiguous, the doubt was resolved in favor of the insureds. Therefore, the policy covered other losses resulting form the theft of the cows.
Further, the lost milk production was a natural and direct consequence of the cattle theft; the cow theft directly led to the lost milk production. Because the lost milk production was covered as a direct loss under the policy, Country Mutual motion was denied on these grounds as well.
