DOCSLIB.ORG

Lloyd's Syndicate No. 5820 D/B/A Cassidy Davis V. AGCO Corp

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lloyd's Syndicate No. 5820 D/B/A Cassidy Davis V. AGCO Corp Lloyd's Syndicate No. 5820 v. AGCO Corp., 734 S.E.2d 899 (2012) 12 FCDR 4013 [5] insurer was not precluded from relying on exclusion based on failure to deliver policy. 734 S.E.2d 899 Court of Appeals of Georgia. Affirmed. LLOYD'S SYNDICATE NO. 5820 d/b/a Cassidy Davis v. Attorneys and Law Firms AGCO CORPORATION. *902 Scott Wayne McMickle, Atlanta, for Lloyd's AGCO Corporation Syndicate No. 5820. v. Lloyd's Syndicate No. 5820 d/b/a Cassidy Davis. Kim Monroe Jackson, Atlanta, Frank C. Bedinger III, Juhee Glynn General Purchasing Group, Inc., et al. Jun, for Glynn General Purchasing Group, Inc. v. T. Bart Gary, Atlanta, Bradley J. Watkins, Brunswick, Seth AGCO Corporation. F. Kirby, Atlanta, for AGCO Corporation. Nos. A12A1125, A12A1126, Opinion A12A1281. | Nov. 30, 2012. PHIPPS, Presiding Judge. Synopsis Background: Manufacturer of agricultural spray applicator AGCO Corporation manufactured and sold agricultural brought action against administrator of service contracts for equipment, offering extended protection plans to its manufacturer, manufacturer's liability insurer, and group in customers. Warranty Specialists, Inc. d/b/a Glynn General which manufacturer was a member that purchased master Corporation sold the extended protection plans to AGCO and liability policy for manufacturer, seeking declaration that administered the plans. Glynn General Purchasing Group, policy covered claims against manufacturer under service Inc. (“GGPG”) obtained a master policy of liability insurance contracts based on alleged design defect in applicator wheel for AGCO from Lloyd's Syndicate No. 5820 d/b/a Cassidy and asserting claims against insurer for breach of contract Davis to provide coverage to AGCO for its liability to and bad faith and against administrator and group for breach AGCO's customers pursuant to the extended protection plans. of contract and fraud. The trial court denied defendants' When Warranty Specialists later suspended payment of motions for summary judgment and granted partial summary warranty claims filed in connection with failed wheel motors judgment to manufacturer. All parties appealed. on equipment enrolled in the extended protection plans, AGCO sued. The trial court granted AGCO's motion for partial summary judgment and denied Cassidy Davis's motion Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Phipps, P.J., held that: for summary judgment on the issue of whether the extended protection plans and the master insurance policy covered [1] policy covered claims against manufacturer; or excluded coverage for equipment failures resulting from a design or engineering defect. The court denied Cassidy [2] material fact issues existed as to whether insurer had Davis's motion for summary judgment on AGCO's claims reasonable basis for refusing to pay claims; for bad faith refusal to pay. It also denied AGCO's summary judgment motion based on estoppel and the inapplicability of [3] manufacturer's demand to insurer for payment was an exclusion clause in the master insurance policy, and denied sufficient under bad faith statute; summary judgment to Warranty Specialists and GGPG on various claims, including those for breach of contract, fraud [4] defendants were not estopped from relying on policy and attorney fees. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the exclusion not originally asserted as a ground for denial of judgments. coverage; and *903 AGCO manufactured and sold an agricultural spray applicator known as the RoGator. The RoGator was powered © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Lloyd's Syndicate No. 5820 v. AGCO Corp., 734 S.E.2d 899 (2012) 12 FCDR 4013 by four wheel motors; the failure of one wheel motor caused Also in September 2008, Warranty Specialists sent an email the entire machine to stop functioning. message to AGCO stating that no further wheel motor claims would be paid because, pursuant to the master policy, Beginning in 2005, AGCO offered extended protection Cassidy Davis had invoked the Epidemic Failure Clause in plans (“EPPs”) to its customers who purchased RoGators. relation to RoGator wheel motors. “With immediate effect, AGCO purchased the EPPs from Warranty Specialists, no further claims should be paid in respect of any [AGCO] paying the latter premiums for each RoGator enrolled in attachments ...; for the avoidance of doubt this includes any an EPP. Warranty Specialists administered the EPP. Under claims pending or subsequently advised.” 1 When Warranty the EPP, AGCO agreed to repair or replace covered parts Specialists failed to pay the dealers' wheel motor claims, of the RoGator, “if required due to a MECHANICAL AGCO paid the claims. BREAKDOWN or FAILURE that is the result of a true defect in material or workmanship.” [1] AGCO sued Warranty Specialists, Cassidy Davis, and GGPG, seeking declaratory relief regarding coverage under The EPP pertinently provided: “This service contract the master policy and reimbursement for payment of the coverage is limited exclusively to the repair or replacement warranty claims; asserting claims for breach of contract and of covered parts ... determined to have failed due to a bad faith against Cassidy Davis; asserting claims for breach of MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE as defined contract and fraud against Warranty Specialists and GGPG; under terms and definitions.” The EPP defined a covered and asserting claims for money had and received against “mechanical breakdown or failure” as “the actual breaking Warranty Specialists, Cassidy Davis, and GGPG. Cassidy or electronic failure of any covered part of the covered Davis appeals in Case No. A12A1125; AGCO appeals in MACHINE while in ordinary use arising from faults Case No. A12A1126; and Warranty Specialists and GGPG attributable to manufacturing defects in workmanship or appeal in Case No. A12A1281. This court reviews the *904 materials in such MACHINE causing sudden stoppage of the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. 2 functions thereof and necessitating repair before it can resume work.” GGPG obtained a master policy of liability insurance for Case No. A12A1125 AGCO from Cassidy Davis, which provided coverage to AGCO for any liability AGCO had to its customers for [2] 1. Cassidy Davis contends that the trial court erred by machines enrolled in the EPP. granting AGCO's motion for partial summary judgment and by denying its motion for summary judgment on the issue Pursuant to the EPP and the master policy, the purchaser of whether there was coverage for breakdowns attributable of a machine that had a mechanical breakdown or failure to design defects. According to Cassidy Davis, the EPP and presented the machine to one of AGCO's dealers, who master policy did not afford coverage for failures resulting made the initial determination of coverage; if the repair was from a design or engineering defect, and the RoGator's wheel covered, the dealer repaired the machine. The dealer then motor failures resulted from such a defect. 3 submitted a claim for reimbursement for the repair cost to Warranty Specialists, who would evaluate and pay or deny The trial court ruled that the language of the EPP and master claims under the EPP. Warranty Specialists paid premiums to policy was unambiguous and “[did] not exclude or limit Cassidy Davis, and Cassidy Davis paid Warranty Specialists coverage for a design or engineering defect”; and that, as used for claims deemed valid. in these contracts, the “the term ‘manufacturing defects' [did] not exclude coverage for breakdowns or failures attributable In mid-to late 2008, after having accepted and paid to, or caused by, a design defect.” The court granted AGCO's approximately 25 wheel motor claims, Warranty Specialists motion for partial summary judgment “on the issue of whether stopped processing the claims. In September 2008, it the EPP and the master policy provide coverage for a informed AGCO that it was placing all wheel motor claims on mechanical breakdown or failure that is allegedly attributable hold until it received support from AGCO (such as assistance to, or caused by, a design or engineering defect.” in paying the claims or higher premiums). © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Lloyd's Syndicate No. 5820 v. AGCO Corp., 734 S.E.2d 899 (2012) 12 FCDR 4013 [3] An insurance policy is simply a contract, the provisions Thus, assuming that the procedural requirements of the Code of which should be construed as any other type of contract. 4 section were met, the question of whether an insurer has acted The whole contract should be looked to in arriving at the in bad faith in denying a claim under OCGA § 33–4–6 11 must construction of any part. 5 be submitted to a jury unless the insurer can prove as a matter of law that it possessed a reasonable defense to coverage. 12 [4] [5] [6] As set out above, the EPP covered the actual The insurer's defense to the coverage must be reasonable breaking or electronic failure of any covered part “while in under the circumstances presented in the case. 13 ordinary use arising from faults attributable to manufacturing defects in workmanship or materials.” Where a contract There was evidence that, in explaining its basis for denying requires that conduct “arise out of” an act, “it does not the claims, Cassidy Davis cited “a clear historical reliability mean proximate cause in the strict legal sense but instead problem on wheel motors,” not a contractual provision. And encompasses almost any causal connection or relationship.” 6 it cited the EFC; AGCO pointed to evidence that the EFC “Indeed, nothing more than a slight causal connection is was not part of the EPP or the master policy, that it had been required to show that a loss arose out of a specified act given no notice of the EFC before the clause was invoked, set forth in a contract.” 7 The phrase “arising from faults that Cassidy Davis and Warranty Specialists knew of previous attributable to manufacturing defects in workmanship or wheel motor issues before entering into the contracts, and that materials” is broad enough to include a breakdown or failure the claims were being denied because they had become too related to a manufacturing defect, even where there was a costly.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2021 US Auto Insurance Study
    Auto Insurance Customer Satisfaction Stalls Despite $18 Billion in Premium Relief, J.D. Power Finds Weaknesses in Self-Service Communications Channels Overshadow Pandemic-Driven Refunds TROY, Mich.: 15 June 2021 — The auto insurance industry voluntarily returned more than $18 billion in auto insurance premiums to customers in 2020 to address the sharp decline in miles driven during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the magnitude of this historic relief effort, the J.D. Power 2021 U.S. Auto Insurance Study,SM released today, finds that overall customer satisfaction with auto insurers is flat, following four consecutive years of improvement. “What we’re seeing in this year’s study is a case of insurers delivering with their actions but missing the mark on effective communication to their customers,” said Robert Lajdziak, senior consultant for insurance intelligence at J.D. Power. “The refunds provided to customers during the pandemic were significant, representing nearly 7% of total industry premiums, but only half of customers were even aware of them. Worse, when customers needed to communicate with their insurers, either via phone, website or chat, many came away feeling less satisfied with the result than in the past.” Following are some of the key findings of the 2021 study: • Overall satisfaction stagnates: Overall customer satisfaction with auto insurance providers is 835 (on a 1,000-point scale) this year, unchanged from a year ago. This is the first time since 2017 that auto insurance customer satisfaction has not improved year over year. • Insurers miss the mark in communication: While price is the lowest-scoring factor in the study, it has seen the greatest improvement year over year.
    [Show full text]
  • AGCO Opens Nominations for 11Th Annual Operator of the Year
    August 25, 2016 AGCO Opens Nominations for 11th Annual Operator of the Year DULUTH, Ga. (Aug. 25, 2016) – AGCO Corporation (NYSE:AGCO) is now accepting nominations for 2016 Operator of the Year, which recognizes hard-working applicators across the country. These professionals spend long hours in the field every season, using technologically advanced application machinery like a RoGator® or a TerraGator® to accurately and efficiently apply fertilizer and crop protection products on millions of crop acres, helping farmers achieve their best possible yield. This year’s winner will receive a grand prize of a brand new Harley-Davidson® motorcycle. “We’re proud to have recognized the industry’s top application professionals for 10 years, and look forward to meeting even more of them this year. This award highlights the important part these professionals play in helping farmers meet the challenge of providing food, fiber and fuel to the world,” stated Richard Kohnen, director of tactical marketing at AGCO. The company is now in its 11th year as the sole sponsor of the program. The Operator of the Year program is open to all ag retailers and custom applicators in the United States, regardless of the machine brands in their application fleets.** A panel of judges from AGCO will evaluate nominees based on their performance — both on and off the field — including criteria such as skill, dedication and customer service as well as community involvement. “While we can select only one winner, everyone in agriculture succeeds with the expertise and effort these professionals contribute to our industry. In the past, managers and customers of applicator finalists told us their nominee had extensive knowledge of their customers’ operations and the willingness to do whatever it takes to accomplish the job,” Kohnen stated.
    [Show full text]
  • AGCO Dealer Scholarship Program
    Ford Fund and Ford Trucks Built Ford Tough – FFA Scholarship Program ELIGIBILITY: Students who are pursuing a two-year or four-year degree in any major. Applicants must apply online and then visit their local participating Ford Truck dealer for signature and dealer code. Qualified students will be considered for all FFA scholarships, but in order to be considered for the Built Ford Tough – FFA Scholarship they must have a Ford dealer signature and dealer code on the required Signature Page. To find a participating dealer who has identified a local FFA Chapter, visit www.ffa.org. Applicants unable to find a participating dealer online may obtain a signature and dealer code from their local Ford dealer to make them eligible for one of five national scholarships. AWARD: Up to 500 scholarships available at $1,000 each to be awarded on behalf of participating Ford Truck dealers. Five additional national scholarships at $1,000 each will be available to students who do not have a participating Ford Truck dealer in their area but did obtain a Ford dealer signature and dealer code. In addition to scholarships, Ford Trucks will provide grants to FFA chapters in each of the six (6) NAAE regions. Qualifying chapters must have a local Ford dealer participating in the scholarship program and a minimum of three (3) applicants for the Built Ford Tough – FFA Scholarship. Visit www.naae.org for more details. SPONSOR BIO: Ford has been building tough trucks that move and service America since 1908. 2012 marks the 64th year of FFA support by Ford Trucks, Ford Motor Company Fund and participating Ford Truck dealers, and 35 years as the best-selling line of trucks for F-Series.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Windstorm Insurance Association 2017 Percentage of Participation Summary of Participation
    Texas Windstorm Insurance Association 2017 Percentage of Participation Summary of Participation Adjusted 2017 Percentage Member Group of Participation* Allstate Insurance Group 13.559% Farmers Insurance Group 12.346% Liberty Mutual Insurance Companies 10.087% USAA Group 9.642% State Farm Group 7.113% Travelers Group 5.435% Nationwide Group 4.771% Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Group 3.673% ASI Lloyds 2.732% Hartford Insurance Group 2.546% Chubb Group of Insurance Companies 2.112% Auto Club Enterprises Insurance Group 1.471% Assurant Solutions 1.439% Amica Mutual Group 1.435% MetLife Auto and Home Group 1.187% NLASCO Group 0.895% Homeowners of America Insurance Company 0.891% Argo Group 0.857% Munich-American Holding Corporation 0.822% Ranchers And Farmers Mutual Insurance Company 0.784% Unitrin Property & Casualty Insurance Group 0.704% Hanover Ins Group Property & Casualty Companies 0.683% State Auto Insurance Companies 0.674% Central Insurance Companies 0.624% FM Global Group 0.594% Centauri Specialty Ins Holdings, Inc 0.577% Columbia Lloyds Companies 0.508% Ameriprise Group 0.474% Wellington Insurance Company 0.470% American Risk Insurance Company Inc 0.452% W.R. Berkley Group 0.446% Universal Insurance Company of North America 0.418% GuideOne Insurance 0.397% Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company 0.379% Agricultural Workers Group 0.342% Sentry Insurance Group 0.333% Palomar Specialty Insurance Company 0.329% Torus Insurance Holdings Limited 0.325% Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange 0.323% United Fire & Casualty Group 0.309%
    [Show full text]
  • AGCO Corporation (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    Table of Contents As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2004 Registration No. 333-113560 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 PRE-EFFECTIVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 to Form S-3 REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AGCO Corporation (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 58-1960019 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 4205 River Green Parkway Duluth, Georgia 30096 (770) 813-9200 (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices) Stephen D. Lupton Senior Vice President of Corporate Development and General Counsel AGCO Corporation 4205 River Green Parkway Duluth, Georgia 30096 (770) 813-9200 (Name, address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of agent for service) With copies to: W. Brinkley Dickerson, Jr. Troutman Sanders LLP 600 Peachtree Street, Suite 5200 Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216 (404) 885-3000 Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: From time to time after the effective date of this registration statement. If the only securities being registered on this form are being offered pursuant to dividend or interest reinvestment plans, please check the following box. [ ] If any of the securities being registered on this form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, other than securities offered only in connection with dividend or interest reinvestment plans, check the following box. [X] If this form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, please check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.
    [Show full text]
  • Preferred Employer Program Companies*
    Preferred Employer Program Companies* • 3M Company • AutoZone • Cintas • 7-Eleven • Avera Health • Cisco Systems • AAA - (Employees Only) • Avon Products • Citigroup • Abbott Laboratories • Bacardi USA • Citizens Financial Group • AbbVie Corp. • Bank of America Corp. • Cleveland Clinic Foundation • Accenture Ltd. • Baptist Health South Florida • Coca-Cola Bottling Co. • adidas America • Barclays Capital/Stifel Financial • Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis • Advanced Micro Devices • Bausch & Lomb • Compass Group USA • Aflac - (Employees Only) • Bayer Corp. • ConocoPhillips • Alcon Laboratories • Becton, Dickinson and Company • Continental General Tire • ALDI • Berkshire Hathaway • Corning • Allegheny Health Network • BI Worldwide • Costco • Allergan • Biogen Idec • Cowan Systems • Alliance Data • BioReference Labs • Cox Enterprises • Allianz Global Investors of America • Bloomin’ Brands • Credit Suisse Asset Mgmt. • Allstate Insurance Co. - (Employees Only) • Blue Cross Blue Shield - (Employees Only) • CSRA International • Altice • Blue Iron • Cumberland Farms • Amazon • Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals • Curtiss-Wright Corp. • American Airlines Credit Union • Boeing Corp. • CVS • American Association of Physicians • Boston Scientific Corp. • Daimler Trucks North America of Indian Origin • BP • Dassault Systèmes • American Express Co. - (Employees Only) • Braintree Laboratories • DealerTrack Holdings • AMETEK • Bristol Myers Squibb • Del Monte Foods • Amgen • Broadcom • Dell • Analog Devices • Brown-Forman • Deloitte & Touche LLP • Anthem
    [Show full text]
  • Recipient List 3M A.O. Smith Corporation Abbott Laboratories
    Recipient List 3M A.O. Smith Corporation Abbott Laboratories Ace Hardware Corporation AEGON N.V. AGCO Corporation AGL Resources Alliance Resource Partners, L.P. Allstate Insurance Company Alpha Technologies, Inc. Altria Client Services Amadeus North America American Air Liquide Holdings, Inc. American Ethane, LLC Amway Anthem, Inc. APi Group, Inc. Argo Group International Holdings Ltd. Associates International, Inc. AT&T, Inc. Atlantic Council Bay Electric Co., Inc. Black Hills Corporation Blue Rock Companies BMO Financial Group BNSF Railway Company Caesars Entertainment Corporation Caterpillar Inc. Celgene Corporation CHEP North America Chester Group Citadel LLC Clark Robinson Capital CNH Industrial CNL Financial Group, Inc. Comanche Lumber Company, Inc. ConocoPhillips CONSOL Energy, Inc. CUNA Mutual Group Cynosure Investments LLC DDB Worldwide Communications Group, Inc. Deere & Company Deloitte LLP DHL DonahueFavret Contractors Holding Company DryStone Capital LLC E&E Enterprises Global, Inc. Edward Jones Emergent BioSolutions Inc. Emerson Electric Co. FedEx Freight Florida Power & Light Company Fluor Corporation FORD Motor Company Front Street Advisors Ltd. Great Western Lodging Health Care Service Corporation IBM Indiana University Health Indigo Partners LLC International Merchants, LLC Knowledge Universe Las Vegas Sands Corporation Leading Authorities, Inc. LORD Corporation LTM Enterprises Ludlum Measurements, Inc Malaleuca, Inc. Mesa Capital Partners, LLC NCI Building Systems, Inc. Norfolk Southern Corporation Nuscale Power LLC Odney OneAmerica Financial Partners, Inc. PERMAC Industries Pfizer, Inc. PGi Phillips 66 Pool Corporation Quam-Nichols Company Ruan Transportation Management Systems Ryder System, Inc. Salt Lake Chamber Sanofi US Services Inc. Schneider National, Inc. Schnitzer Steel Industries Select Milk Producers Sempra Energy Silgan Holdings Inc. Southern Company SSA Consultants State Farm Mutual Steptoe & Johnson PLLC Steward Health Care System LLC Sunrise Senior Living Telcom Ventures, L.L.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Allstate Insurance Company V. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company No
    Allstate Insurance Company v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company No. 43, Sept. Term, 2000 Insurance company suffers actual prejudice from non-cooperation of insured when, as a result of non-cooperation, insurer is precluded from offering evidence that would generate legitimate jury issue as to liability or damages. Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Case Nos. CAL97-13899 and CAL97-14441 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 43 September Term, 2000 ______________________________________ ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. ______________________________________ Bell, C.J. Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Rodowsky, Lawrence F. (retired, specially assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Wilner, J. ______________________________________ Filed: March 5, 2001 It is common, indeed universal, for automobile insurance policies to contain clauses that require an insured who is involved in an accident to cooperate with the company in the investigation and resolution of any claim made against the insured. In the case at bar, the policy, issued by petitioner State Farm Insurance Company to Latricia Kirby, required Ms. Kirby, among other things, to “cooperate with us and, when asked, assist us in: a. making settlements; b. securing and giving evidence; [and] c. attending and getting witnesses to attend hearings and trials.” Kirby was involved in an automobile accident and, eventually, two claims were made against her. Although she initially cooperated with the insurer, her cooperation was short-lived. As a direct consequence of her subsequent lack of cooperation, State Farm was precluded from defending the claims, and a judgment in the amount of $150,000 was entered against Kirby.
    [Show full text]
  • We Know Agriculture Annual Report 2010 2 AGCO // Annual Report 2010
    We Know Agriculture ANNUAL REPORT 2010 2 AGCO // Annual Report 2010 AGCO AT A GLANCE As the world’s largest manufacturer focused purely on agricultural equipment, AGCO is uniquely positioned to increase farm productivity through high-tech solutions for professional farmers feeding the world. KEY BUSINESS FIGURES in million $ – except per share amounts 2010 2009 Change Net sales 6,896.6 6,516.4 5.8% Income from operations 324.2 218.7 48.2% Net income attributable to AGCO Corporation and subsidiaries 220.5 135.7 62.5% Total assets 5,436.9 4,998.9 8.8% Stockholders’ equity 2,659.2 2,394.4 11.1% Earnings per share(1) 2.29 1.44 59.0% Adjusted earnings per share(2) 2.32 1.55 49.7% (1) On a diluted basis. (2) For a reconciliation of adjusted earnings per share, see footnote 2 on page 37. SALES BY PRODUCT in % Tractors 15% Parts Combines 68% 6% Application equipment 4% 4% Implements and other 3% Hay and forage SALES BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION ADJUSTED EARNINGS PER SHARE in million $ in $ (1) NA 22% 2010 2.32 SA(2) 25% 2009 1.55 EAME(3) 49% ROW(4) 4% 2008 3.95 (1) North America (3) Europe, Africa, Middle East (2) South America (4) Rest of World: Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Eastern Europe ON THE COVER In 2010, AGCO made solid progress toward meeting its long-term growth objectives. Among other things, it was a year marked by numerous combine launches and the announcement of a strategic acquisition of a state-of-the-art combine facility, proof of our accelerated commitment towards improving harvesting productivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Product Design 2021 Award for Massey Ferguson MF 8S Series Tractors April 01, 2021
    2021 Red Dot Product Design Award winner, commercial vehicle category, MF 8S Series of tractors Prestigious Red Dot: Product Design 2021 Award for Massey Ferguson MF 8S Series tractors April 01, 2021 Massey Ferguson, a worldwide brand of AGCO (NYSE:AGCO), is delighted to announce it is honoured to receive a Red Dot Award: Product Design 2021 for Product design, in the commercial vehicle category, for the innovative MF 8 S Series of tractors. This latest accolade follows the MF 8S.265 Dyna E-Power Exclusive winning the prestigious Tractor of the Year 2021 as well as Best Global Digital launch 2020. An international jury selected the MF 8S from thousands of entries from more than 60 countries for the Red Dot Award: Product Design 2021 Award, which is only presented to products that feature outstanding design. “We are honoured the MF 8S has been chosen to receive this special award,” says Thierry Lhotte, Vice President & Managing Director Massey Ferguson, Europe & Middle East. “With the MF 8S Series, we are defining a new era in tractor design, which the jury has distinguished with the Red Dot: Product Design 2021 Award. “Developed for farmers by farmers, following seven years of thorough testing and extensive customer consultation, the MF 8S Series combines radical designs with a practical purpose. While equipped to a superb specification, it also introduces a completely new and enhanced user experience,” adds Mr Lhotte. “The MF 8S launch was just the first milestone of our fully rejuvenated tractor range offensive. We are thrilled to have received such industry leading awards for the MF 8S together with farmers’ recognition through their choice for their new tractor.
    [Show full text]
  • MSF Safety Course Benefits
    MSF Safety Course Benefits Successful completion of an MSF Safety Course can lower motorcycle insurance rates and provide additional discounts at select retailers. Be sure to keep your course completion card handy to provide as proof of completion. Here are a list of some of benefits offered: INSURANCE DISCOUNTS ● Geico: 10% discount for completing a Motorcycle Safety Foundation or Military Safety Course. http://www.geico.com/information/discounts/motorcycle-insurance-discounts/ ● Utica National Insurance Group: 10% Motorcycle Safety Course http://www.uticanational.com/insurance/personal-insurance/motorcycle.aspx ● Allstate: Save 5% if you’ve voluntarily passed a Motorcycle Safe Driving in the past 36 months. http://www.allstate.com/motorcycle-insurance/discounts.aspx ● Progressive: Completing an approved safety course could earn you a discount http://www.progressive.com/motorcycle/discounts/ ● Nationwide Insurance: 5 % discount after completing an approved safety course. http://www.nationwide.com/motorcycle-insurance-discounts.jsp ● esurance: discount after completing safety course. http://www.esurance.com/motorcycle-insurance ● Farmers Insurance: discount for completing safety course. http://www.farmers.com/motorcycle/discounts/ ● State Farm Insurance: 5% discount after completing Defensive Driving Course. http://motorcycleinsurancereviews.net/state-farm-motorcycle-insurance-review.html ● Dairyland Cycle Insurance: Motorcycle Safety Course completion. https://www.dairylandinsurance.com/motorcycle-insurance-discounts RETAIL DISCOUNTS ● Aerostich Clothing- 10 % discount for MSF instructors http://www.aerostich.com/pricing-discounts ● Cycle Gear: 15% discount on your first purchase by showing your MSF Course Completion card. http://www.cyclegear.com/msfdiscount DEALERS DISCOUNTS Riders of Kawasaki (ROK) - $50 Kawasaki gift certificate for completion of Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) skills class.
    [Show full text]
  • Massey Ferguson Introduces 5700 Global Series Tractors Equipped with Dyna-4 Transmission
    Oct 15, 2019, 6:00:00 AM Massey Ferguson Introduces 5700 Global Series Tractors Equipped with Dyna-4 Transmission Livestock and hay operations will now enjoy greater efficiency from these durable workhorses New MF5710D (100 HP) and MF5711D (110 hp) mid-range tractors from Massey Ferguson feature the high-end performance of the rugged, reliable Dyna-4 transmission in a handy tractor designed for efficient loader work, hay production and general on-the-farm use. • Two Massey Ferguson® 5700 Global Series mid-range tractors are now available with the convenience of the popular Dyna-4 transmission, making them even better-suited for loader work, hay production and general on-the-farm chores. • The Dyna-4 transmission shifts smoothly through 16 forward and 16 reverse speeds without clutching, making speed and direction changes easy and efficient. Auto-Drive™ adds even more convenience during transport or field work by speed-matching the transmission to the job, while the Brake to Neutral feature lets the operator stop the tractor by merely pressing the brake pedal. • The two new models, the MF5710D (100 HP) and MF5711D (110 HP), come standard with the largest, quietest cab in their class and are loader-ready from the factory with an integrated joystick to operate any of the four available Massey Ferguson loaders. • Standard features that optimize the work they can handle and set them apart from the competition include an easy-to-read digital system information screen, advanced cab suspension for a smooth ride, three hydraulic remotes and a 540E/540/1000 PTO, plus radial tires for better traction and ride.
    [Show full text]