Performance Trans., Inc. v. General Star Indemnity Company ( 2020 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 20-1022
PERFORMANCE TRANS., INC.; UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Timothy S. Hillman, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Thompson, and Kayatta,
Circuit Judges.
Syed S. Ahmad, with whom David M. Parker, Hunton Andrews Kurth
LLP, Jared A. Fiore, Douglas T. Radigan, and Bowditch & Dewey,
LLP were on brief, for appellants.
Cara Tseng Duffield, with whom Hume M. Ross and Wiley Rein
LLP were on brief, for appellee.
December 18, 2020
LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Performance Trans., Inc. and
Utica Mutual Insurance Company (collectively "PTI") brought this
Massachusetts breach of contract and unfair and deceptive
insurance practices action under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 11
against PTI's excess insurer, General Star Indemnity Company.
After the parties cross-moved for summary judgment, the district
court granted summary judgment in General Star's favor on the
breach of contract claim, finding the relevant excess policy
provisions unambiguously excluded coverage. Finding the excess
policy ambiguous, we reverse and order entry of judgment in favor
of PTI on the Massachusetts breach of contract claim, and we
dismiss the 93A claim.
I.
A. Facts.
PTI, a Massachusetts corporation, transports
commodities, including petroleum products. As a commercial
transporter of petroleum products, it obtained insurance coverage.
On February 19, 2019 a PTI tanker-truck overturned in North Salem,
New York "spilling approximately 4,300 gallons of gasoline, diesel
fuel, and dyed diesel fuel onto the roadway and [into a] nearby
reservoir." Remediation work, which counsel for PTI states has
cost almost $3,000,000 to date, has been undertaken by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and PTI.
- 2 -
At the time of the accident PTI held approximately
$1,000,000 in primary insurance coverage for its shipping
operations. It is undisputed that the primary insurance covers
this incident, including the cleanup costs.
The insurance policy at issue here is the excess
liability policy covering the period of March 2018 to March 2019.
The policy provided an aggregate of $5,000,000 in coverage beyond
the coverage limit on PTI's primary insurance. Nothing in the
record establishes that all terms of this excess policy were
standard form insurance contracts.
The policy stated "[General Star] will indemnify the
insured for ultimate net loss in excess of the total of the limits
of underlying insurance that is covered by both the controlling
underlying policy and this policy." And "[e]xcept for the express
provisions of this policy, this policy will follow the provisions,
conditions, exclusions and limitations of the controlling
underlying policy."
The excess policy also contained twenty riders. Out of
these twenty riders, fifteen are labeled exclusions. One such
exclusion is in Endorsement 14, titled "Exclusion -- Total
Pollution," which states:
This policy does not apply to any damages for
which the insured is legally liable, or loss,
costs or expenses arising out of, resulting
from, caused by or contributed to by . . .
[t]he actual, alleged or threatened discharge,
- 3 -
dispersal, seepage, migration, release or
escape of pollutants at any time . . . [or
any] [r]equest, demand, or order that any
insured or others test for, monitor, clean up,
remove, contain, treat, detoxify or
neutralize, or in any way respond to, or
assess the effects of pollutants. . . . This
policy does not apply to damages . . . caused
by . . . pollutants regardless of whether the
underlying insurance affords coverage for such
damages . . . .
There is another endorsement, Endorsement 13, which is
not one of the named exclusions. It is rather titled "Special
Hazards and Fluids Limitation Endorsement." It states:
This policy does not apply to ultimate net
loss or costs from any event arising out of,
contributed by or relating to any Special
Hazard described in this endorsement and
resulting from the ownership, maintenance or
use of any auto. Special Hazards: A. Radiation
Hazard[;] B. Underground Hazard[;] C. Drilling
Fluids Unloading Hazard[.] However, this
exclusion does not apply to an event arising
out of the unloading of drilling fluids from
an auto covered by this policy and covered by
the controlling underlying insurance for the
total limits of the underlying insurance, if
the unloading of drilling fluids resulted
directly from any of the following: 1. Heat,
smoke or fumes from a hostile fire; 2. Upset
or overturn of such auto; 3. A collision
between such auto being used in your business
and another object; or 4. A short term
drilling fluid event, provided that coverage
under this item 4: a. Will be available to
bodily injury or property damage, but not
damage to real property or to a body of water
or to any other natural resource; and b. Will
not be available unless written notice of the
short term drilling fluid event is given to us
or the controlling underlying insurance
company as soon as practicable, but no more
than thirty (30) days after the shipment of
- 4 -
the drilling fluids was entrusted to your
care. If any other limit, such as a sublimit,
is specified in the underlying insurance, then
paragraphs 1. and 2. above will not apply
unless that limit is specified in the SCHEDULE
OF UNDERLYING INSURANCE.
The Endorsement also specially defines a number of terms, including
"drilling fluids unloading hazard." The parties agree for purposes
of appeal that the February 19, 2019 accident falls under the
second exception for upset or overturn of an auto.
On March 13, 2019, after cleanup costs exceeded PTI's
$1,000,000 primary insurance limit, PTI made a claim with General
Star under the excess liability policy. General Star disclaimed
any coverage obligation on the basis of the Total Pollution
Exclusion. PTI then contacted its insurance agent, Insurance
Marketing Agency, who requested General Star reconsider the denial
in light of the Special Hazards Endorsement. General Star again
disclaimed any coverage, saying the Total Pollution Exclusion
barred coverage, and in any event the fuel spill did not qualify
as a "drilling fluids unloading hazard." General Star now accepts
for purposes of appeal that the February 19, 2019 accident falls
under the Drilling Fluids Unloading Hazards item in Endorsement
13.
Utica then issued PTI provisional coverage of up to
$1,000,000 on condition that PTI assigned Utica its right to
recover up to that amount from General Star. Utica again asked
- 5 -
General Star to reconsider its coverage disclaimer.1 When General
Star disclaimed any coverage obligation for the third time, PTI
and Utica brought this suit.
B. Relevant Procedural History.
Both parties agreed there were no genuine questions of
material fact, and the policy interpretation could be decided as
a pure question of law. The district court entered summary
judgment in favor of General Star on all counts.
Both before the district court and on appeal General
Star argues "the [February 19, 2019] [a]ccident is a classic claim
for environmental contamination barred by the Total Pollution
Exclusion." PTI argues that there was coverage under the Special
Hazards Endorsement, or at least the policy was ambiguous, and all
ambiguity must be construed against the insurer.
The district court found the policy unambiguous and
characterized the Special Hazards Endorsement as an exclusion with
an exception. It read Massachusetts law to create a per se rule
that "if the Total Pollution Exclusion bars coverage for the
[a]ccident, the Special Hazards and Fluids Limitation Endorsement
cannot create ambiguity." The district court granted summary
1 In parallel, on March 15, 2019, PTI asked General Star
to narrow the Total Pollution Exclusion in exchange for a premium
increase.
- 6 -
judgment in favor of General Star on the Massachusetts breach of
contract claim, and dismissed the 93A, § 11 claim with prejudice.
II.
A. Legal Standard.
We review both the district court's grant of summary
judgment and its interpretation of the contract de novo, "drawing
all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party." Pac.
Indem. Co. v. Deming, 828 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting
Roman Cath. Bishop of Springfield v. City of Springfield, 724 F.3d
78, 89 (1st Cir. 2013)); see also Dukes Bridge LLC v. Beinhocker,
856 F.3d 186, 189 (1st Cir. 2017). It is undisputed Massachusetts
law applies to the contract-law issues in this case. See Dukes
Bridge LLC, 856 F.3d at 189.
B. Analysis.
Massachusetts courts look to "what an objectively
reasonable insured, reading the relevant policy language, would
expect to be covered." Dorchester Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krusell, 150
N.E.3d 731, 738 (Mass. 2020) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). We must "interpret the words 'in light of
their plain meaning, . . . giving full effect to the document as
a whole.'" Holyoke Mut. Ins. Co. in Salem v. Vibram USA, Inc.,
106 N.E.3d 572, 577 (Mass. 2018) (quoting Golchin v. Liberty Mut.
Ins. Co., 993 N.E.2d. 684, 688 (Mass. 2013)) (alterations in
original).
- 7 -
Under Massachusetts law, a policy term is ambiguous when
"reasonably intelligent persons would differ" as to the proper
meaning of the term. Dorchester Mut. Ins. Co., 150 N.E.3d at 738
(quoting Citation Ins. Co. v. Gomez, 688 N.E.2d 951, 952 (Mass.
1998)). "Ambiguity does not exist simply because the parties
disagree about the proper interpretation of a policy provision;
rather[] '[a]mbiguity exists when the policy language is
susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.'" Valley
Forge Ins. Co. v. Field, 670 F.3d 93, 97 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting
Brazas Sporting Arms, Inc. v. Am. Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.,
220 F.3d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir. 2000) (alteration in original)). We
must construe any ambiguity in the policy in favor of the insured.
Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Morrison, 951 N.E.2d 662, 671
(Mass. 2011).
Massachusetts courts further construe policy exclusions
strictly against the insurer. Green Mountain Ins. Co., Inc. v.
Wakelin, 140 N.E.3d 418, 427 (Mass. 2020) (applying the "long-
standing principle of strictly construing exclusions from
coverage against the insurer"); City Fuel Corp. v. Nat'l Fire Ins.
Co. of Hartford, 846 N.E.2d 775, 779 (Mass. 2006) (noting
"the strict construction we normally afford exclusionary clauses,
particularly where there is any ambiguity"). Under Massachusetts
law, courts should err on the side of the narrowest plausible
interpretation of the exclusion and resolve doubts about the scope
- 8 -
of an exclusion in favor of the insured. Hakim v. Mass. Insurers'
Insolvency Fund, 675 N.E.2d 1161, 1165 (Mass. 1997) (the rule of
construction that any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the
insured "applies with particular force to exclusionary
provisions"); Vappi & Co., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 204
N.E.2d 273, 276 (Mass. 1965) ("[A]mbiguity in . . . somewhat
complicated exclusions must be construed against the insurer.").
The district court concluded the Special Hazards
Endorsement was unambiguously an exclusion with exceptions, and
applied what it viewed as a Massachusetts per se rule against
finding an affirmative coverage obligation in an exception to an
exclusion when, on the district court's reading, another provision
unambiguously barred coverage. Because we find the purpose and
effect of the Special Hazards Endorsement to be ambiguous, we do
not reach the question of whether such a per se rule exists under
Massachusetts law.
1. The plain text of the Special Hazards Endorsement is
ambiguous.
The Special Hazards Endorsement is susceptible to at
least three different interpretations. Item 4 states, in part,
that "coverage under this item 4: . . . [w]ill be available to
bodily injury or property damage, but not damage to real property
or to a body of water or to any other natural resource." (Emphasis
added.) This language does not appear in the preceding three
- 9 -
items. One reading, adopted by PTI, is that this clause in item
4 makes explicit and qualifies a coverage guarantee in each of the
four items. On this view, each of the four items in the Special
Hazards Endorsement guarantees coverage in the circumstances the
item describes. This guarantee is explicit only in item 4, because
that is the only place where the agreement limits that guarantee
(by excluding damage to real property, bodies of water, or other
natural resources). A second reading, which neither party
advocates, is that this language creates a limited coverage
guarantee only for item 4. The narrowest reading, which General
Star adopts, is that implicitly, this clause contains a limitation
that the "[w]ill be available" language does not apply if an
exclusion elsewhere in the agreement also applies.2 But this is
not explicit anywhere in the Endorsement. Both PTI's and General
Star's interpretation of the Endorsement require an inferential
step, and neither is ruled out by the text of the Endorsement.
2 General Star also argues PTI waived at summary judgment
the argument that the Special Hazards Endorsement creates
coverage. This argument is meritless. PTI and Utica plainly
argued coverage was available because the Special Hazards
Endorsement and its exceptions applied. Indeed, at summary
judgment General Star argued "PTI and Utica attempt to create
coverage by pointing to . . . the Drilling Fluids Exclusion [in
the Special Hazards Endorsement]." This issue was thus fairly
presented to the district court. See La Plante v. Am. Honda Motor
Co., Inc., 27 F.3d 731, 740 (1st Cir. 1994) (stating that an issue
"timely and squarely presented to the district court" is not
waived).
- 10 -
Other language in the Special Hazards Endorsement adds
to the ambiguity. The Endorsement is titled a "limitation" but
later states "this exclusion . . . ." And unusually for a policy
exclusion, it appears to contain at least a limited affirmative
guarantee of coverage in item 4. We are required to assume
"[e]very word in an insurance contract" was "employed with a
purpose." Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Cotter, 984 N.E.2d 835, 844
(Mass. 2013) (quoting Allmerica Fin. Corp. v. Certain Underwriters
at Lloyd's, London, 871 N.E.2d 418, 425 (Mass. 2007)).
"Limitation" is not synonymous with "exclusion." See Pinheiro v.
Med. Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass'n of Mass., 547 N.E.2d 49,
51–52 (Mass. 1989) ("The limitation straightforwardly promises to
pay up to the policy limit for a single claim or multiple claims
stemming from the 'injury' incurred by each 'person' as a result
of the malpractice."); Radiology Res., Inc. v. Busfield, 494 N.E.2d
1370, 1372-73 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986) (holding that the limitation
clause in the policy limited liability from losses of jewelry or
precious metals or stones to $1,000 per incident). Using both the
terms "exclusion" and "limitation" in the Special Hazards
Endorsement adds to the confusion about the purpose and effect of
this provision (as does the very label of this endorsement as a
limitation and not an exclusion). See CPC Int'l, Inc. v.
Northbrook Excess & Surplus Ins. Co., 962 F.2d 77, 88 (1st Cir.
1992).
- 11 -
And under Massachusetts law, provisions of an insurance
agreement should be read in light of the purpose of the overall
agreement. U.S. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Benchmark Constr. Servs., Inc.,
797 F.3d 116, 122-23 (1st Cir. 2015). This was an excess liability
policy for a company that shipped, among other things, petroleum
products. Reading the agreement, as General Star does, to exclude
a major risk in PTI's line of business is inconsistent with the
purpose of this insurance policy.
In these circumstances, the plain text of the Special
Hazards Endorsement is ambiguous. Nothing in the text of the
Endorsement conclusively favors one interpretation over the
others.
2. Other provisions in the policy do not resolve the
ambiguity in the Special Hazards Endorsement.
Massachusetts instructs courts to read the text of an
insurance policy as a whole and give meaning to each provision in
context. See Holyoke Mut. Ins. Co., 106 N.E.3d at 577; LES Realty
Trust "A" v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 977 N.E.2d 566, 569 (Mass.
App. Ct. 2012) ("[W]ell-established principles of policy
interpretation requir[e] that we consider policy provisions in
context and in light of the policy as a whole.").
The text of this agreement as a whole does not provide
any context that resolves the ambiguity in the meaning of the
Special Hazards Endorsement. Rather, it uses clauses that might
- 12 -
have clarified the meaning of that provision inconsistently. For
example, the Certified Acts of Terrorism Exclusion states "[t]he
terms and limitations [of this exclusion] . . . do not serve to
create coverage for 'any injury or damage' that is otherwise
excluded under this Coverage Part." General Star did not include
the same language in the Special Hazards Endorsement, or other
endorsements, such as the Silica Exclusion, Asbestos Exclusion, or
the Nuclear Waste Exclusion.
The agreement also labels the Special Hazards
Endorsement a "limitation" whereas it calls the fifteen other
endorsements that limit coverage "exclusions." As we have
described, the Special Hazards Endorsement also uses the term
"exclusion" in its text. It is unclear whether the use of a
different title for the Special Hazards Endorsement is meaningful
-- as it ordinarily would be -- or simply inadvertent. See
Endorsements, riders, and the like, 2 Couch on Ins. § 21:21 (3d
ed. 2020) ("The caption of a rider is to be read and construed
with the language of the rider itself . . . .").
And there is substantial overlap between the Total
Pollution Exclusion and the specific endorsements in the
agreement. The Total Pollution Exclusion disclaims coverage for
"any . . . [r]equest, demand, or order that any insured or others
test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify or
neutralize, or in any way respond to, or assess the effects of
- 13 -
pollutants." It further defines pollutants to include "[a]ny
solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant,
including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and
waste." But the policy still contains specific exclusions for
cleanup costs for pollutants that appear to meet that broad
definition, including nuclear waste, bisphenol A, asbestos, and
silica.3 Massachusetts courts ordinarily read insurance agreements
to avoid surplusage. See Desrosiers v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 468
N.E.2d 625, 629 (Mass. 1984). Once again, the extent to which the
redundancy in this particular agreement is meaningful, or simply
inadvertent, is unclear. For that reason, we cannot rely on the
Total Pollution Exclusion to resolve the ambiguity in the text of
the Special Hazards Endorsement.
In these circumstances, neither PTI's nor General Star's
interpretation of the Special Hazards Endorsement is unreasonable.
"[T]he phraseology can support a reasonable difference of opinion
as to the meaning of the words employed and the obligations
3 Massachusetts has cited approvingly case law calling
silica a "pollutant." See Warner Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,
951 N.E.2d 1013, at *5 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011) (unpublished table
opinion). More generally, it has stated that a reasonable
policyholder's expectations govern what constitutes pollution
within the meaning of such a policy. See Feinberg v. Com. Union
Ins. Co., 766 N.E.2d 888, 893 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002).
- 14 -
undertaken." Surabian Realty Co. v. NGM Ins. Co., 971 N.E.2d 268,
271 (Mass. 2012) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
3. Ambiguity in the policy must be construed in favor of
the insured.
Massachusetts law is unequivocal that faced with two
plausible interpretations of the policy, we must construe all
ambiguity in favor of the insured.4 Id. at 271; Metro. Prop. &
Cas. Ins. Co., 951 N.E.2d at 671; see also Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Weathermark Invs., Inc., 292 F.3d 77, 80 (1st Cir. 2002) ("[A]ny
residual ambiguity must be resolved against the insurer."). When
faced with competing plausible interpretations of the insurance
policy "doubts as to the intended meaning of the words must be
resolved against the insurance company that employed them."
Surabian Realty Co., 971 N.E.2d at 271 (quoting Boazova v. Safety
Ins. Co., 968 N.E.2d 385, 390 (Mass. 2012)). This is doubly so
when construing a provision that limits available coverage. See
4 General Star argues that even if the policy is ambiguous,
extrinsic evidence proves the Total Pollution Exclusion precludes
coverage here. It points to the fact that after this dispute arose
PTI renegotiated its insurance coverage and paid an additional
premium in exchange for a more limited Total Pollution Exclusion.
This is unpersuasive. At the district court the parties agreed
this matter presented a pure question of law that could be resolved
without discovery. In any event, General Star has not met its
burden to show the extrinsic evidence is "so one-sided” that no
reasonable person could accept PTI and Utica's interpretation in
light of that evidence. See Mason v. Telefunken Semiconductors
Am., LLC, 797 F.3d 33, 38 (1st Cir. 2015); see also Utica Mut.
Ins. Co. v. Weathermark Invs., Inc., 292 F.3d 77, 80 (1st Cir.
2002).
- 15 -
Hakim, 675 N.E.2d at 1165; Vappi & Co., Inc., 204 N.E.2d at 276.
We conclude coverage is available to PTI and reverse.
4. PTI's unfair and deceptive insurance practices claims
are meritless.
We see no basis in the evidence for PTI's claim of unfair
and deceptive insurance practices claims. General Star's
interpretation of the policy was not inherently unreasonable. Cf.
N. Sec. Ins. Co. v. R.H. Realty Tr., 941 N.E.2d 688, 692 (Mass.
App. Ct. 2011) ("[A] good faith dispute as to whether money is
owed, or performance of some kind is due, is not the stuff of which
a . . . 93A claim is made.") (quoting Duclersaint v. Fed. Nat'l
Mortg. Ass'n, 696 N.E.2d 536, 540 (Mass. 1998)). And PTI waived
any arguments that it is entitled to judgment on the 93A claim
below by asserting "should this court decide the coverage issue in
the plaintiffs' favor, General Star is not entitled to [s]ummary
[j]udgment on the plaintiffs' 93A claim."
III.
The judgment of summary judgment for General Star
Indemnity Company is reversed. Judgment should be entered on the
Massachusetts breach of contract claim for plaintiffs Performance
Trans., Inc. and Utica Mutual Insurance Company. The Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 93A, § 11 claim is dismissed with prejudice. No costs
are awarded.
- 16 -