A commercial dispute involving an insurance claim for a rejected shipment of frozen chicken has concluded with the Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals upholding summary judgment in favor of Travelers Property Casualty Company of America. The decision means that BBI Logistics, a freight brokerage company, will not recover under its insurance policy after its client’s cargo was stolen during transit and subsequently rejected by the recipient.
The case originated when BBI Logistics LLC filed suit in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on June 21, 2022, naming GRS Transport Inc. and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America as defendants. The complaint alleged that GRS breached its broker/carrier agreement by failing to safely transport 20 pallets of frozen chicken in February 2021, and that Travelers wrongfully denied coverage under a commercial inland marine insurance policy issued to BBI.
According to court documents, BBI had arranged for GRS Transport to move the shipment from Alabama to Texas. GRS subcontracted Summer Express Inc., whose driver parked the loaded trailer on a residential street in Monroe, Louisiana for four days due to a winter storm. During this time, an unknown person broke into the trailer and stole approximately 15 to 20 pounds of chicken. When delivery resumed several days later, Standard Meat Company refused the entire load. BBI reimbursed its client $52,400 for the loss.
BBI sought damages from both GRS and Travelers. While it obtained a default judgment against GRS for $52,400 plus interest and costs (which GRS did not appeal), its claim against Travelers centered on whether the insurance policy covered this loss. The key issue was an exclusion in the “cargo theft” endorsement: property left in or on a vehicle at any location (other than listed terminals or facilities) for more than twenty-four hours would not be covered if the time of loss could not be determined.
During litigation, disputes arose over discovery deadlines and evidence submissions. Travelers served requests for admission on BBI but did not receive timely responses; as a result, these requests were deemed admitted by court order on March 8, 2023. Although BBI attempted to submit late responses and later moved to withdraw or amend these admissions, both the trial court and appellate court found no abuse of discretion in denying such relief.
Travelers supported its motion for summary judgment with affidavits from Summer Express personnel stating that the trailer remained parked for about four days before delivery resumed and that it was impossible to determine exactly when during this period the theft occurred. The trial court found that this triggered the cargo theft exclusion in BBI’s policy with Travelers because both conditions—property stationary more than twenty-four hours at an unlisted location and undetermined time of loss—were met.
BBI challenged various aspects of how evidence was handled by both courts: it argued that certain affidavits were inadmissible or improperly authenticated; that police reports constituted hearsay; and that expert testimony was ignored or misapplied. The appellate decision addressed each argument in detail but ultimately held that either proper procedures were followed or any disputed material was not relied upon by the trial court in granting summary judgment.
Another significant point raised by BBI involved requests for additional time under Civil Rule 56(F) to conduct depositions after missing discovery deadlines. However, records showed BBI had been aware of relevant witnesses early in litigation but did not pursue depositions within agreed timelines—and even opposed extensions sought by Travelers until after adverse affidavits were filed.
In affirming summary judgment for Travelers, Judge Mentel wrote: “Because the undisputed, admissible evidence in the record establishes the cargo theft exclusion applies, the frozen chicken is not covered property under the insurance policy.” As there was no breach of contract by Travelers’ denial nor bad faith established under Ohio law when coverage is excluded by policy terms, all claims against Travelers failed.
Attorneys named in filings include Brian W. Benbow (Benbow Law Offices LLC) representing BBI Logistics LLC as appellant; Michele A. Chapnick (Gregory, Meyer & Chapnick P.C.) representing Travelers Property Casualty Company of America as appellee. The case ID is No. 23AP-766.
Source: 2026Ohio1146_BBI_Logistics_LLC_v_GRS_Transport_Inc_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
