A May 19, 2025 opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle Division) offers a compelling lesson for wineries and wine producers on how disputes over defective wine intersect with commercial liability insurance. The decision in Goose Ridge LLC et al. v. The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-01058, illustrates how factual ambiguity can allow a winemaker’s insurance claim to proceed past summary judgment.

Winery Contract Disputes and Insurance Coverage: The Background

Goose Ridge LLC and Goose Ridge Vineyards LLC had two key contracts with wine brand K Vintners: a Custom Winemaking Agreement and a grape purchase agreement. The Custom Winemaking Agreement made Goose Ridge responsible for receiving and vinifying grapes, storing the resulting wine, and managing bottling. That agreement also capped Goose Ridge’s liability to cases of intentional misconduct, negligence, or breach, and required arbitration for disputes. The grape contract granted K Vintners exclusivity over designated vineyard blocks and prohibited Goose Ridge from keeping surplus yields.

In 2022, K Vintners alleged that its 2020 vintage of “Substance” Cabernet Sauvignon was defective—unmarketable due to excessive volatile acidity (VA) and insufficient sulfur dioxide (SO₂). K Vintners blamed Goose Ridge’s winemaking process, initiating arbitration. Goose Ridge countered, arguing that environmental grape quality and K Vintners’ own bottling specifications—particularly the selected oxygen-permeable closures—caused or contributed to the spoilage.

The parties settled. Goose Ridge paid a confidential sum and sought indemnification under its commercial general liability (CGL) policy with Ohio Casualty.

Volatile Acidity and CGL Exclusions: The Summary Judgment Battle

Ohio Casualty denied the claim, citing standard CGL exclusions: “your product,” “impaired property,” “care, custody or control,” and the “products-completed operations hazard” exclusion. The insurer filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking an early dismissal of Goose Ridge’s claim.

The court denied that motion. Judge Marsha J. Pechman held that genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment. These included:

  • Whether the wine defects were due to Goose Ridge’s conduct or external factors (e.g., poor grape quality or flawed bottle closures).
  • Whether the damage occurred while the wine was in Goose Ridge’s possession.
  • Whether the CGL exclusions clearly applied given the facts.

These unresolved questions meant that a jury—or other factfinder—would need to decide the underlying issues.

Why Goose Ridge’s Winery Insurance Claim Survived

The opinion highlights the factors that helped Goose Ridge survive summary judgment:

  • Competing expert evidence suggesting alternative causes for the wine spoilage.
  • Proof that K Vintners selected the closure method that may have contributed to the VA levels.
  • Strong documentation of Goose Ridge’s winemaking process and responsibilities.

How This Could Have Gone Wrong for the Winemaker

Despite this favorable ruling, the case underscores risks for wine producers:

  • If Goose Ridge had failed to preserve enological evidence or decision-making records, it might have faced a dispositive ruling.
  • An absence of limitations on liability or unfavorable indemnification terms could have left Goose Ridge fully exposed.
  • Weak or ambiguous contract drafting might have undermined the insurer’s duty to indemnify.

Advice for Wineries and Wine Producers Handling Defective Wine Claims

  1. Document the Winemaking Process Thoroughly. Track grape conditions, fermentation variables, bottling inputs, and packaging specs.
  2. Negotiate Liability Protections. Winemaking and grape supply contracts should limit liability to defined causes (e.g., negligence) and contain protective indemnification language.
  3. Review and Understand Insurance Coverage. Work with brokers to ensure your CGL and umbrella policies adequately address production risks and exclude as little as possible.
  4. Secure and Preserve Expert Support Early. Engage winemaking experts and enologists promptly when defects are suspected, and preserve lab testing results and product samples.

Conclusion: A Valuable Case Study for Wine Industry Risk Management

The Goose Ridge case is a rare window into wine industry litigation over product defects and commercial liability insurance. It shows how factual nuance can keep insurance coverage alive—but also how easily things can go wrong without good contracts, documentation, and expert support.

The post Federal Court Allows Winery to Pursue Insurance Claim in Defective Wine Coverage Dispute appeared first on Libation Law Blog.