What happened: The Andersons, Inc. and its insurers allege that a grain storage bin collapsed in Toledo, Ohio, after a contractor installed defective welds on a stiffening ring.
Who's involved: The Andersons, Inc. (insured); Lloyd's of London syndicates and AIG Specialty Insurance Company (subrogating insurers); HMT LLC (contractor)
What's at stake: Damages in excess of $25,000 (the jurisdictional minimum stated in the complaint), plus pre- and post-judgment interest and attorney fees
Why it matters: Subrogation recovery actions against contractors turn on whether welding and installation met the contractual and industry standards promised - a pattern claims and underwriting teams see regularly in commercial property losses
Where it stands: Complaint filed September 11, 2026; removed to federal court October 19, 2026
One million bushels of wheat went to the ground in January 2025 when a grain storage tank ruptured at a Toledo, Ohio, facility.
Now the tank's owner and its insurers say they know why: a defective weld on a stiffening ring installed years earlier by a specialist tank contractor.
The Andersons, Inc. - a publicly traded Ohio agribusiness - filed suit alongside Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London and AIG Specialty Insurance Company against HMT LLC, a Texas-based tank contractor. Lloyd's and AIG are suing as subrogees - meaning they paid out on The Andersons' insurance claim and are now stepping into the company's shoes to chase the contractor for what they spent.
The case was filed in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas on September 11, 2026, and HMT removed it to the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on October 19, 2026.
According to the complaint, the two companies have worked together since 2007 under a Master Contractor Agreement. In August 2018, The Andersons issued two purchase orders for HMT to install a stiffening ring on Grain Tank 4 at its Kuhlman Drive facility in Toledo. One of those orders was worth $57,000.
The job involved welding steel angle segments around the full circumference of the tank. HMT's own proposal committed it to welding all items in line with API 650 and API 653 - the American Petroleum Institute's industry standards for how storage tanks should be built, inspected, and repaired.
On January 21, 2025, Tank 4 collapsed. It was holding one million bushels of wheat at the time.
The complaint alleges that an investigation traced the rupture to a defective weld HMT had installed between the tank's shell and the stiffening ring. The filing goes further, claiming investigators found "several welding defects in the shell-to-stiffening ring weld and heat affected zone, including porosity, incomplete fusion, slag inclusions, and hydrogen cracks."
That is not one missed spot. Those are multiple, distinct types of failure in the same zone.
The complaint brings five counts against HMT: breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of the contract's indemnity clause, and negligence.
On the contract side, the complaint quotes the Master Contractor Agreement at length. Under that agreement, HMT was allegedly required to take sole responsibility for "all construction, installation, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures" and perform the work "strictly in accordance with this Agreement."
The warranty claims zero in on language in both the agreement and the purchase orders. The complaint says HMT promised to use workers who were "experienced and skilled in their profession," to deliver work "in accordance with industry standards," and to ensure it was "free from defects in title, design, material and workmanship."
The complaint also says HMT agreed to cover The Andersons against losses arising from its work - including attorney fees - under the contract's indemnity provisions.
The negligence count alleges HMT failed to use reasonable care when installing the stiffening ring and welded it "in a defective condition."
The Andersons submitted a claim to the Lloyd's syndicates and AIG after the collapse. According to the complaint, the insurers paid out more than the state court's $25,000 jurisdictional minimum. The exact figure is not stated in the filing. For the federal removal, HMT asserted the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000.
The Andersons also alleges it suffered self-insured retention costs and uninsured damages, including two separate deductibles.
All five counts seek damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney fees, and a jury trial.
Subrogation recoveries against contractors turn on a straightforward question: did the work match what the contract promised? For claims professionals handling commercial property losses, the level of detail in this filing - down to the specific weld defects an investigation allegedly uncovered - is the kind of evidence that can drive or derail a recovery.
The allegations in this case have not been tested, and no court has ruled on the merits.
