Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02980/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02980-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Eads
Appellant
Sawmill Hydraulics
Not Party
The Cincinnati Insurance Company
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2980

___________

The Cincinnati Insurance Company, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

Sawmill Hydraulics, Inc.; * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Defendant, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Gary Eads, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2007

Filed: February 23, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gary Eads appeals the district court's 1

 grant of summary judgment in favor of

The Cincinnati Insurance Company (TCC), holding the injuries Eads sustained while

working on a log turner manufactured by Sawmill Hydraulics, Inc., were not covered

by the terms of an insurance policy issued by TCC and covering Sawmill. 

Appellate Case: 06-2980 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281372
-2-

TCC argued Eads's injuries were subject to the policy's products-completed

operations hazard exclusion. Eads argued a safety device could have been designed

which would have prevented his injuries. According to him, if a safety feature could

have been installed – even though one only existed in theory – his injuries were

caused by "uninstalled equipment," and such injuries were excepted from the

products-completed operations hazard exclusion. 

The district court held the exception to the exclusion relied upon by Eads only

applied to equipment present at the site when the accident occurred. We agree. In this

case, not only was the "uninstalled equipment" not present at the site, the equipment

did not exist. Because an extended discussion would add nothing to the well-reasoned

order of the district court, we affirm under 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2980 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281372