The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P obtained an insurance policy from D. The 'DEFINITIONS' section defines the term 'Farm Barns, Buildings and Structures' to include 'any fixtures or equipment attached to, installed in or connected for use within a building.' The 'BASIC PERILS' section includes in the list of perils covered 'Vandalism, or Malicious Mischief.' The third relevant provision is the heading 'GENERAL EXCLUSIONS,' followed by the phrase '(Apply to all Coverages).' Both the fourth and fifth relevant provisions are under this heading. The fourth is the 'Chemical or Biological' exclusion, which reads, 'Regardless of the amount of damage or loss, this exclusion applies to any losses that are carried out or caused by dispersal or application of pathogenic or poisonous biological or chemical materials.' The fifth relevant provision is the 'Concurrent Causation' exclusion, which provides that, if any one exclusion applies, the Insurance does not cover the loss resulting directly or indirectly from any concurrent cause. It does not cover a loss 'if one or more of the exclusions apply to the loss, regardless of other causes or events that contribute to or aggravate the loss whether such causes or events act to produce the loss before, at the same time as, or after the excluded causes or events.' A herbicide containing the chemical glyphosate was introduced into the water systems for the minks' cages on P's two farms. P filed a claim for the cost of replacing the water systems. D investigated and denied the claim. P sought a declaratory judgment stating that their loss and damages were covered and claiming breach of contract, joint enterprise, joint venture, and a right to an order for appraisal. D moved to dismiss, alleging that the policy's exclusions barred coverage. The district court denied the motion. D then filed an answer, alleging that the policy exclusions barred coverage and that P's willful misrepresentations, concealment and fraud, and intentional causation of all damages were affirmative defenses for D. D also filed a counterclaim against Daniel Lang (P), alleging insurance fraud. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The court granted D's motion for partial summary judgment based on the chemical-or-biological exclusion and the anti-concurrent-cause exclusion, denied D's motions for summary judgment based on the misrepresentation-and-fraud exclusion, the pollutants exclusion, and the terrorism exclusion, and awarded D recoverable costs and expenses. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.