Peabody Essex Museum, Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
Nos. 13-1528, 13-1602
PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM, INC.,
Plaintiff, Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Third-Party Defendant, Appellee.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Thomas M. Elcock, with whom Mitchell S. King and Prince Lobel
Tye LLP were on brief, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Martin C. Pentz, with whom Jeremy A.M. Evans and Foley Hoag
LLP were on brief, for appellee/cross-appellant.
Brian G. Fox, with whom Siegal & Park was on brief, for third-
party defendant, appellee.
September 4, 2015
HOWARD, Chief Judge. Some decades ago, a substantial
oil spill occurred on the Salem, Massachusetts property of
plaintiff Peabody Essex Museum ("the Museum"). That pollution
eventually migrated to the land of a down gradient neighbor,
Heritage Plaza, which discovered the subsurface contamination in
2003. Heritage Plaza notified the Museum in late 2003, and the
Museum gave prompt notice to both the state environmental
authorities and its insurer, defendant United States Fire
Insurance Company ("U.S. Fire"). In 2006, the Museum filed a
coverage suit against U.S. Fire and eventually secured a sizable
judgment in 2013. The parties now challenge numerous district
court rulings, and several of the insurance issues are governed by
state law under Boston Gas Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., 910 N.E.2d
290 (Mass. 2009), a decision which rejected joint and several
liability in progressive pollution cases in favor of pro rata
allocation of indemnity, including for self-insured years on the
risk.
After careful review, we affirm the challenged rulings
related to insurance coverage but reverse a finding of Chapter 93A
liability against U.S. Fire under Massachusetts law.
I.
The surrounding facts are well-rehearsed in the district
court orders below. See, e.g., Peabody Essex Museum, Inc. v. U.S.
Fire Ins. Co., 623 F. Supp. 2d 98 (D. Mass. 2009); Peabody Essex
- 3 -
Museum, Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., No. 06-11209-NMG, 2012 WL
2952770, at *1 (D. Mass. July 18, 2012). A brief synopsis is
enough to set the stage.
The principal parties share a contractual relationship
under a comprehensive general liability policy which, as pertinent
here, had a policy period that extended from December 19, 1983 to
December 19, 1985. Generally speaking, the policy covered property
damage occurring during that two-year period as long as the damage
arose out of a sudden and accidental discharge of pollutants.1
Under the policy, U.S. Fire also promised to defend the Museum
from any suit seeking damages against it on account of any covered
property damage and to investigate any claim as it deemed
expedient.
Once the Museum received notice of the pollution damage
from Heritage Plaza in 2003 ("the private demand"), it retained
the Ropes & Gray law firm as legal counsel and ENSR International
as an environmental consultant. The Museum confirmed the existence
of subsurface oil pollution on its property and immediately
notified the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
1The 1983-1985 policy excluded coverage for all property
damage arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape
of pollutants into the ground. But an exception to that exclusion
reserved coverage for "sudden and accidental" discharges. See
Peabody Essex Museum, 623 F. Supp. 2d at 102-03. A subsequent
U.S. Fire policy incorporated an absolute pollution exclusion
provision and, thus, is not relevant to this litigation.
- 4 -
of the pollution. The Department, in turn, issued the Museum a
Notice of Responsibility in early 2004 ("the public claim"), and
ENSR continued its site investigation work throughout 2004. In
its Initial Site Investigation Report completed that November,
ENSR identified several isolated spills that had occurred on the
Museum's property over the years. ENSR concluded, however, that
the likely cause of the pollution involved one or more of three
oil storage tanks or their pipelines previously buried on the
Museum's property: a 10,000-gallon tank had been installed in the
early 1960s and removed in 1973, and two 10,000-gallon tanks had
been installed in 1973 and removed in June 1986.
Meanwhile, the Museum notified U.S. Fire of both the
private demand, in October 2003, and the public claim, in February
2004. U.S. Fire denied a duty to defend for the private demand
but accepted defense for the public claim with a reservation of
rights. Despite tendering both legal and environmental consultant
bills to U.S. Fire in April 2005, the Museum received no payment
for the defense of the public claim -- the one that U.S. Fire had
agreed to defend. In June 2006, the Museum filed a four-count
complaint against U.S. Fire in state court, alleging that U.S.
Fire had breached its contractual duties to investigate the
pollution claims and to defend and indemnify the Museum in
connection with both the private demand and the public claim
(counts I and II). The Museum also alleged that U.S. Fire had
- 5 -
violated state consumer protection laws, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A,
§ 2, and certain common law duties owed to its insured (counts III
and IV). At the behest of U.S. Fire, the case was removed to
federal court where it filed a third-party complaint for equitable
contribution against another of the Museum's insurers, ACE
Property & Casualty Insurance.
The extensive, multi-phase litigation included several
rounds of summary judgment proceedings and a jury trial resolving
indemnity issues. About midway through the litigation, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") decided Boston Gas
Co., 910 N.E.2d 290, to which the district court moored its
decision on allocation of liability between U.S. Fire and the
Museum as self-insured on the risk after December 19, 1985.2 In
the end, the district court's 2013 judgment required U.S. Fire to
pay the Museum over $1.5 million, including punitive damages under
Chapter 93A, attorney's fees, costs, and statutory interest.
Our review of the various rulings on appeal is largely
de novo, and we abide by the well-established summary judgment
standards. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). We are not restricted by the district
court's analyses and may affirm on any independent ground made
2 The parties agree that the operative language in the U.S.
Fire policy does not meaningfully differ from that at issue in
Boston Gas.
- 6 -
manifest in the record. See Jones v. Secord, 684 F.3d 1, 5 (1st
Cir. 2012). Where appropriate, we identify other review standards
along the way.
II.
U.S. Fire first appeals the district court's 2007 order
that it breached its duty to defend against the public claim, and
thus state law required it to bear the trial burden of proving no
coverage. See Polaroid Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 610 N.E.2d
912, 922 & n.22 (Mass. 1993) ("[A]n insurer that wrongfully
declines to defend a claim [must bear] the burden of proving that
the claim was not within its policy's coverage" including, in
pollution cases, "the existence or nonexistence of a sudden and
accidental discharge."). Following this Polaroid burden-shifting
rule, the district court set forth the anticipated trial procedure
in which the Museum was expected to produce credible evidence
demonstrating that an occurrence took place during the term of the
insurance policy, and then U.S. Fire would bear the burden of
proving no coverage. Electronic Order (Gertner, J., Dec. 19,
2007); see Peabody Essex Museum, 623 F. Supp. 2d at 106-10
(clarifying how the Polaroid burden-shifting rule applies in the
summary judgment context).3
3 The district court held in abeyance the issue of whether
U.S. Fire also had a duty to defend on the Heritage Plaza private
demand. See Electronic Order (Gertner, J., Dec. 19, 2007).
Eventually, the Museum settled the private demand for $300,000.
- 7 -
U.S. Fire attacks this summary judgment order on several
fronts, all aimed at foreclosing application of the Polaroid
burden-shifting rule. This is understandable in light of the
cascade of practical effects that Polaroid had throughout this
litigation, especially given the dearth of evidence showing how
the polluting event occurred. However, the district court's breach
ruling -- grounded in U.S. Fire's categorical failure for
approximately two years to make any payment for defense costs --
is unassailable on this record. Only a few snapshots of the
undisputed facts are necessary to show why.4
U.S. Fire agreed in March 2004 to honor its contractual
duty to defend the public claim under a reservation of rights and
then paid nothing to its insured until cornered by the Museum
through its October 2007 motion for summary judgment. From the
outset, U.S. Fire protested the hourly rate charged by Ropes &
The district court subsequently determined that while the Polaroid
burden-shifting rule applied to the settlement figure, an open
question remained on whether the private demand letter triggered
U.S. Fire's duty to defend during the period of time after U.S.
Fire received the private demand but before it received the public
claim. See Electronic Order (Gertner, J., June 19, 2009). No
issue on the duty to defend the private demand has surfaced on
appeal.
4 The 2007 summary judgment record is robust and includes
communications among the various players from 2004 through 2007 as
explained by, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the third-
party claims administrators for both U.S. Fire and ACE. The
material facts regarding U.S. Fire's breach involve the
interactions between the Museum and U.S. Fire, including their
agents.
- 8 -
Gray but failed to pay even a partial payment despite repeated
requests for some measure of payment. For example, in 2005, the
Museum sent U.S. Fire the billing invoices from both Ropes & Gray
and ENSR and, soon after, provided further detail for the ENSR
bills.5 Still, no money came. Then, U.S. Fire remained silent
when directly asked in an August 2005 email whether it had paid
any defense costs to date. According to the record, about a year
passed before U.S. Fire informed the Museum that it was unable to
confirm whether it had ever received any billing for defense costs.
The Museum filed suit against U.S. Fire in June 2006 and
again sent copies of the Ropes & Gray bills to the insurer. The
Museum also sent U.S. Fire additional legal bills at the end of
2006. Yet, another six months passed before U.S. Fire informed
the Museum, in June 2007, that it had lost the billing information
and asked for additional copies. The Museum promptly complied.
After another three-month lapse without any payment in hand, the
Museum filed a motion for summary judgment to enforce U.S. Fire's
defense obligation. Finally, in conjunction with its objection,
U.S. Fire sent its first payment to the Museum totaling $611.41.
This amount represented what U.S. Fire considered to be a fair
portion of the Ropes & Gray bills for the public claim: it
5
The legal bills related to work for both the private demand
and the public claim but some invoices clearly identified the
public claim work.
- 9 -
unilaterally reduced the charged attorney's fees rate to $200 per
hour, and further reduced to 40%6 the revised total legal bills.
No payment was offered for any of the 2004 ENSR bills which totaled
roughly $70,000.00 at that time.7
U.S. Fire's persistent failure to make any payment
toward defense costs despite having nominally accepted that duty
may be treated as a wrongful refusal to defend upon receipt of
notice of a claim. The SJC has said explicitly that "[a]n insurer
which reserves its rights and takes no action in defense of its
insured, when it knew, or should have known, of a covered claim,
or which fails to investigate diligently, despite repeated claims
of coverage and requests for a defense from an insured facing
demands for immediate action, could be found to have committed a
breach of the duty to its insured." Sarnafil, Inc. v. Peerless
Ins. Co., 636 N.E.2d 247, 253 (Mass. 1994); accord Chi. Title Ins.
Co. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 172 F.3d 601, 604-06 (8th Cir.
1999) (holding that the insurer's failure to pay even what it had
6 U.S. Fire and ACE purportedly agreed to a 40/60 split of
the defense cost bills for the public claim. ACE had agreed to
defend both the private demand and the public claim. In any event,
the apportionment agreed to by the insurers was not binding on the
insured.
7 The precise dollar figure for the ENSR billings on the
public claim that were provided to U.S. Fire in 2005 is unclear in
the record. Still, the tens of thousands of dollars for the site
work that ENSR largely conducted in 2004 was in excess of
$66,000.00 but less than $85,000.00. As explained, U.S. Fire's
breach does not depend on the exact calculation.
- 10 -
considered to be a reasonable sum for defense costs, despite having
nominally accepted the tender of defense, constitutes a breach of
the duty to defend).
None of the factual issues identified by U.S. Fire are
material to the breach question here. See Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). First, it is immaterial
that the individual employee who was managing the public claim
does not recall ever having personally received the packet. U.S.
Fire does not contest the validity of the Federal Express receipt
signed by an employee of its third-party claims administrator and
dated April 11, 2005, which indisputably shows that the 2005
billing packet was actually received by U.S. Fire's agent. See
Bockser v. Dorchester Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 99 N.E.2d 640, 642 (Mass.
1951) (noting that a principal is generally bound by the actions
of its agents); Chow v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 987 N.E.2d
1275, 1279-80 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013) (same). Moreover, other
undisputed documents show that the same individual claims adjuster
did receive follow-up information about the ENSR bills that the
Museum had sent that same summer. In short, any failure on the
part of the company serving as U.S. Fire's third-party
administrator for the public claim does not bear on the legal
dispute between the insurer and its insured. Cf. Palermo v.
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 676 N.E.2d 1158, 1163 (Mass. App. Ct.
- 11 -
1997) (emphasizing that proof of good faith has no relevance to
the Polaroid burden-shifting rule).
The reasonableness of the Ropes & Gray hourly rate also
is immaterial. It is U.S. Fire's prolonged failure to pay any
portion of its acknowledged responsibility that gives rise to the
breach here. See, e.g., Chi. Title Ins. Co., 172 F.3d at 604-06.
Thus, any quibbling about the hourly rate simply relates to damages
that are owed to the Museum.
U.S. Fire's plaint about the divisibility of the ENSR
bills between defense and indemnity costs is similarly immaterial.
U.S. Fire tacitly acknowledged in its 2007 papers (and also before
us now) that some portion of the ENSR bills relating to the 2004
site work constitutes recoverable defense costs.8 Yet, as with
the legal fees, U.S. Fire made no attempt to pay a single cent,
nor is there any record evidence that it made any effort to resolve
the sizable remuneration issue.
U.S. Fire's apathy stands in sharp contrast to the
Museum's multiple requests for some measure of contractual defense
benefits in 2004 and 2005; its request for clarification in August
2005 of what "defense expenditures [its insurer may have paid] to
8 Appropriately so. See, e.g., Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 117 F.3d 210, 223-24, 225 n.20 (3d
Cir. 1999); Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 928
F. Supp. 176, 183-84 (N.D. N.Y. 1996); Siltronic Corp. v. Emp'rs
Ins. Co. of Wasau, No. 3:11-CV-1493-ST, 2104 WL 901161, at *7 (D.
Or. Mar. 7, 2014).
- 12 -
date [and] on what terms"; and its express reminder about the ENSR
bills in its November 2006 correspondence. Cf. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co.
v. Maguire, 662 F.3d 51, 56-58 (1st Cir. 2011) (holding as a matter
of law that the insurer's diligent investigation efforts and
readiness to comply negated allegations of breach, especially when
compared to the insured's lackadaisical conduct).
We also reject U.S. Fire's attempt to transform its
acknowledged duty to defend into a duty only to reimburse
reasonable fees and costs. According to U.S. Fire, as soon as the
Museum opted to retain control of its own defense for the public
claim, the insurer no longer had a duty to defend and thus its
subsequent conduct cannot amount to a defense breach triggering
Polaroid's burden-shifting rule. But this newly minted theory was
not presented to the district court and, so, it "cannot be surfaced
for the first time on appeal." Goldman v. First Nat'l Bank of
Bos., 985 F.2d 1113, 1116-17 n.3 (1st Cir. 1993) (internal citation
and quotation marks omitted).
In any event, the state cases that U.S Fire cites in
support of its transformation theory address only how an insurance
company satisfies its duty to defend after the insured opts to
maintain the defense due to the insurance company's reservation of
rights. See, e.g., Herbert A. Sullivan, Inc. v. Utica Mut. Ins.
Co., 788 N.E.2d 522, 528 (Mass. 2003); N. Sec. Ins. Co. v. R.H.
Realty Trust, 941 N.E.2d 688, 691 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011); Watts
- 13 -
Water Techs., Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 22 Mass. L. Rptr.
659, 2007 WL 2083769, at *6, *9-10 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2007). While
it is true that an insurance company's obligation to pay defense
costs may in some circumstances stem from its contractual duty to
indemnify, rather than its duty to defend, any contractual
framework to that effect is dictated by the mutually agreed upon
language in the policy or other comparable evidence. See, e.g.,
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pella Corp., 650 F.3d 1161, 1168-71 (8th
Cir. 2011); Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Asbestos Claims Mgmt. Corp., 73
F.3d 1178, 1218-19 (2d Cir. 1995); Shapiro v. Am. Home Assurance
Co., 616 F. Supp. 906, 910-11 (D. Mass. 1985); Health Net, Inc. v.
RLI Ins. Co., 141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 649, 660, 670-71 (Cal. App. 2012).
The record does not suggest this to be the nature of the agreement
between the parties here.9 Moreover, the summary judgment record
contains numerous internal documents authored by U.S. Fire and
evidence of its communications with others plainly showing that it
understood the defense costs question to be tethered to its
contractual duty to defend the public claim, even after the Museum
chose to remain with Ropes & Gray. On the whole, U.S. Fire's
9 The policy provides that U.S. Fire "shall have the right
and duty to defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on
account of such . . . property damage, even if any of the
allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent, . .
. but the company shall not be obligated . . . to defend any suit
after the applicable limit of the company's liability has been
exhausted by payment of judgments or settlements."
- 14 -
silence below on this transformation argument forecloses further
indulgence.
Lastly, U.S. Fire argues that application of the
Polaroid burden-shifting rule is foreclosed here by the lack of
evidence that the Museum suffered any prejudice due to the delay
in U.S. Fire's payment of the de minimis defense costs owed as of
October 2007. The SJC's Polaroid holding does not require proof
of prejudice, however. In adopting a new bright-line rule
regulating the burden of proof where a defense default has
occurred, the SJC examined the natural consequences that
ordinarily flow from such a breach. For example, the state court
explained that a delay in honoring defense obligations may cause
an insured to accept greater liability due to a lack of financial
resources to defend itself, or that delay may hinder the insured's
ability to later prove coverage. Polaroid Corp., 610 N.E.2d at
922. The SJC did not then search for evidence of actual prejudice
in order to discern whether the new burden-shifting rule applied
to the case before it. Id. Indeed, it appears that the insured
in that case may very well have had the financial wherewithal to
pay for its own defense. See id. (remarking that the insured had
"the benefit of controlling the defense").
To cinch the matter, later Massachusetts cases provide
no indication that application of the Polaroid rule first requires
a showing of prejudice. See, e.g., Highlands Ins. Co. v. Aerovox
- 15 -
Inc., 676 N.E.2d 801, 804 n.6 (Mass. 1997); Liquor Liab. Joint
Underwriting Ass'n v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 644 N.E.2d 964, 968, 969
& n.6 (Mass. 1995); Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fontneau, 875 N.E.2d
508, 513 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007); Swift v. Fitchburg Mut. Ins. Co.,
700 N.E.2d 288, 293-94 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998); Palermo, 676 N.E.2d
at 1163.
A cautionary tale to be sure. The full amount of the
Ropes & Gray bills that were pending in October 2007 for the public
claim was fairly modest. However, the dollar amounts of the ENSR
bills -- mostly left ignored by U.S. Fire in its advocacy --
numbered in the tens of thousands as of January 2005. Even still,
U.S. Fire's breach of its duty to defend does not rest on
calculations, but on its wholesale apathy towards its contractual
defense obligation that it owed to its insured -- and that it had
affirmatively accepted as of March 2004.
Given the undisputed facts, the district court properly
faulted U.S. Fire as a matter of law for breaching its duty to
defend. Accordingly, we uphold the court's 2007 decision on
defense breach and, thus, the insurance company must swallow
Polaroid's bitter pill.
III.
The principal parties next appeal discrete aspects of
the district court's allocation decision, which is woven out of
portions of the court's September 2010 and August 2011 orders.
- 16 -
See Peabody Essex Museum, Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., No.
06CV11209-NG, 2010 WL 3895172 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2010) (Gertner,
J.); id., 2011 WL 3759728 (D. Mass. Aug. 24, 2011) (Gertner, J.).
Under attack are the court's rulings that: (i) the pro rata
allocation rule under Boston Gas applied in this case; (ii) the
appropriate start date for the allocation period was the first day
of U.S. Fire's 1983-1985 policy period, i.e., December 19, 1983;
(iii) the fact-based approach, rather than time-on-the-risk,
governed the allocation calculus; and (iv) defense costs were not
subject to pro rata allocation.10 We review de novo the district
court's interpretation and application of state law, and for abuse
of discretion the court's understanding of the jury's verdict and
selection of allocation method. See Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell,
499 U.S. 225, 231-234 (1991); Boston Gas Co. v. Century Indem.
Co., 708 F.3d 254, 259-66 (1st Cir. 2013).
The proceedings following the court's 2007 order on
defense obligations included a 2008 pre-trial summary judgment
order resolving certain indemnity issues, a 2009 jury trial
establishing indemnity liability, and then, the 2010 and 2011 post-
trial summary judgment orders resolving the allocation of
indemnity as between U.S. Fire and the Museum's self-insured
10
One of the many legal rulings that neither party appeals
is the district court's conclusion that language in the U.S. Fire
policy is most consistent with an injury-in-fact trigger. See
Peabody Essex Museum, 2010 WL 3895172, at *11-12.
- 17 -
portion. We note four aspects of these proceedings that help
inform the analysis.
First, the competing evidence. An estimated release of
ten thousand gallons11 caused a significant subsurface oil plume,
a portion of which polluted the Heritage Plaza property. The
Museum's expert blamed the underground storage tanks or associated
piping on the Museum's property that, he asserted, may have begun
releasing oil no later than 1979. By contrast, U.S. Fire's expert
tied the pollution to a compromised fuel line that was damaged on
the Museum's property during reconstruction activities in 1987,
more than one year after the conclusion of the 1983-1985 policy
period.
Second, the indemnity rulings and findings. The
district court ruled in March 2009 that because of the "scant
evidence" on how the oil release occurred, U.S. Fire could not
prove, pursuant to its burden under Polaroid, that any oil release
from the underground storage tanks or piping was not sudden;
"[t]here is simply no evidence on this issue, either way." Peabody
Essex Museum, Inc., 623 F. Supp. 2d at 106-11 (noting that the
parties did not dispute whether the oil release was accidental).
Then, with respect to the timing of the contamination, in June
2009 a jury found that U.S. Fire had not proven that the pollution
11 While the record is not entirely consistent, the parties
eventually seemed to settle on this estimated calculation.
- 18 -
first began after the policy period. This finding triggered
indemnity. The jury also found that U.S. Fire further failed to
prove any date on which the pollution had first begun.12
Third, the Boston Gas decision. As noted earlier, the
SJC issued its decision in Boston Gas about one month after the
2009 indemnity trial in this case but before the district court
had resolved allocation questions. Boston Gas rejected the joint
and several liability approach for indemnity in progressive
pollution cases, instead adopting a pro rata allocation rule that
applies even for pollution years in which the property owner is
self-insured. 910 N.E.2d at 299-311, 315-16 (holding depends on
the policy language at hand). The SJC further held that, while a
fact-based method of allocation is "ideal," time-on-the-risk
serves as a default approach absent sufficient evidence that may
allow for a more accurate estimation of the quantum of property
damage during the risk period. Id. at 312-16.
12Explication of trigger and allocation of indemnity in
Massachusetts is provided in Boston Gas Co., 910 N.E.2d at 300-
01. Of note, proration in progressive injury cases requires
setting a start and end date for the pollution in order to devise
an allocation period. See, e.g., Peabody Essex Museum, 2010 WL
3895172, at *6-12. In this case, knowing that certified questions
were pending before Boston Gas, the district court required counsel
to submit proposed jury instructions for addressing allocation
issues in order to aid the post-trial resolution of the scope of
indemnity. Neither party appeals the court's denial of the joint
request for bifurcation.
- 19 -
Fourth, the post-trial procedural posture. Whittled
down, the parties' pleadings show that they ultimately agreed that
the district court could decide the Boston Gas allocation issues
without the aid of a second jury trial.
With this grounding, we turn to the appellate arguments.
A.
The Museum contends that U.S. Fire's failure to prove
when the pollution first began forecloses the insurer from relying
on Boston Gas to prorate the indemnity costs that it owes to its
insured. Essentially, the Museum advocates for a joint and several
liability approach in this case. We conclude, however, that the
district court properly presaged the SJC's approach when it
declined to adopt the insured-friendly position urged by the
Museum. See Boston Gas, 708 F.3d at 264 (explaining federal
court's duty to "make an informed prediction" as to state court's
probable decision if it faced the state law question).
No doubt the allocation issue is complicated in this
case by the absence of a factual finding from the jury that marks
a definite start date. But a dearth of evidence is no anomaly
where long-term pollution has gone undetected for decades. Even
so, as the district court explained, limited evidence on the timing
of known pollution in a given case may display a range of possible
allocation periods, any of which would result in less than 100%
indemnity from a particular insurer. In such circumstances, the
- 20 -
principles of Polaroid and Boston Gas would not countenance full
indemnity based on failure of proof alone.
In both Polaroid and Boston Gas, the SJC rejected
proposed legal rules that would have enabled insureds to receive
windfall judgments that extended indemnity beyond the contractual
limits set forth in the operative policies. See Boston Gas, 910
N.E.2d at 299-312 (rejecting joint and several allocation for
progressive pollution cases as incongruous with both the policy
language and important public policy objectives); Polaroid Corp.,
610 N.E.2d at 920-22 (declining to automatically impose full
indemnity liability for a breach of the duty to defend as
incongruous with both the policy language and important public
policy objectives). Instead, the SJC has opted for a balanced
approach that affords indemnity coverage only up to the extent
secured by the policy contract between the parties, even where
factual circumstances may muddy the evidentiary waters. See, e.g.,
Boston Gas, 910 N.E.2d at 293, 301, 312, 314, 317 (noting absence
of evidence for proving timing of property damage in progressive
pollution cases, while still endorsing a fact-based calculus where
plausible).
Accordingly, we hold that the district court correctly
ruled that Boston Gas applies to this case such that the "start
and end dates [must be] construed against the party with the burden
of proof, so long as they are consistent with the jury's verdict"
- 21 -
and the trial record. Peabody Essex Museum, 2010 WL 3895172, at
*7. This approach comports with Polaroid by holding U.S. Fire
responsible for the problems of proof that were presumptively
caused by its breach of the duty to defend. See Polaroid Corp.,
610 N.E.2d at 922.
B.
With that understanding of Polaroid and Boston Gas, we
turn to the district court's selection of the beginning of the
1983-1985 policy period as the start date for the allocation
period. U.S. Fire contends that the court misconstrued the jury's
findings and that 1979 should be the start date in order to align
with the testimony of the Museum's expert and trial concessions.
We are unpersuaded that there was any reversible error.
The verdict form that was presented to the jury posed
three questions that addressed the timing of the pollution for
purposes of both triggering coverage and marking a start date for
an allocation period. Question 1 essentially asked whether U.S.
Fire had proven its factual theory that the 1987 oil spill was the
source of the pollution, rather than the older underground storage
tanks or pipelines. Question 2 asked whether U.S. Fire had proven
the date on which the release of oil first caused property damage,
to be answered only if the jury disbelieved U.S. Fire's theory
about the 1987 spill. Question 3 then asked the jury to select a
proven beginning date from a list of ranges in the event that it
- 22 -
answered Question 2 affirmatively. The jury answered the first
two questions in the negative and did not answer the third.
In light of the trial template, the district court
discerned that these jury findings, particularly in answer to
Question 2, meant either that the jurors had accepted the Museum's
expert evidence on the source and timing of the pollution relating
to the older underground storage tanks, or that the jury had
discredited the evidence presented by both parties. After all,
pursuant to Polaroid, the Museum only bore the burden of producing
credible evidence to trigger indemnity; it had no burden to proffer
any evidence of a definitive start date for the oil release(s),
much less to prove it. And, so, to determine a start date from
this verdict ambiguity, the district court returned to the Polaroid
burden-shifting rule: given U.S. Fire's failure of proof, the court
"construe[d] the jury's findings to mean that the allocation period
begins on the first day of U.S. Fire's policy" as "the least
favorable date for an insurer that could not meet its burden of
proof" while still remaining "broadly consistent with the jury's
verdict." Peabody Essex Museum, 2010 WL 3895172, at *8.
U.S. Fire protests this construction. According to U.S.
Fire, "the jury was never asked to determine the start date." U.S.
Fire reasons that because it "never attempted to prove a release
prior to December 19, 1985," it necessarily could not have proven
by a preponderance of the evidence the date on which the release
- 23 -
of fuel oil first caused property damage. Thus, it says, the
jury's negative answer to Question 1 (rejecting the 1987 spill
theory) automatically required a negative answer to Question 2 (a
lack of a start date), without any further deliberation. This
position, however, is out of step with the language of the verdict
form, the jury instructions, and the context of the litigation.
The verdict form plainly prompted the jury to decide
Question 2 only if it answered the first question in the negative,
a point that the court included in its instructions to the jury.13
The court also instructed the jurors to answer "no" to Question 2
if they found the evidence was "insufficient to make a decision
one way or the other" or could not "figure out the date" of a pre-
December 1983 oil release.
Moreover, the district court had abundantly forewarned
the parties that the indemnity trial likely would serve as staging
for potential allocation issues given the pending status of Boston
Gas pre-trial. The court requested, and received, proposed
13Beginning after Question 1, the pertinent part of the
verdict form provides:
If your answer is "Yes," there is no coverage and
you should not go on.
2. If you answered "No" to Question 1, has U.S.
Fire proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, the
date on which the release of fuel oil first caused
property damage?
(Bolded format is in the original.)
- 24 -
allocation instructions from the parties. And colloquies with
counsel during trial show that U.S. Fire expressly assented to a
start date question tethered to the underground oil tanks as the
possible pollution source, in order to avoid a potential second
trial for allocation.
In short, U.S. Fire's self-chosen trial strategy of
focusing the jury's attention on the 1987 event in order to avoid
indemnity does not alter the trial realities that the start date
question was directly posed to and answered by the jury, with U.S.
Fire bearing the burden of proof.14
We also reject U.S. Fire's contention that the district
court erred in failing to select 1979 as the start date in keeping
with the Museum's expert's testimony. As noted, the Museum was
not required to prove any definitive start date at all. Nor did
the Museum's counsel concede that a negative answer to Question 1
meant that the jury necessarily found that the pollution began no
later than 1979. Indeed, the Museum's summation at the close of
trial expressly belies U.S. Fire's current supposition. To the
extent that U.S. Fire relies on principles of equity to advance a
1979 start date, it provides no basis for holding that the district
14 U.S. Fire did not object to the jury instructions, nor to
the format of the verdict form in relation to the start date
question. See Palermo, 676 N.E.2d at 1162 n.7, 1163. Thus, U.S.
Fire's opportunity for challenging the framing of the verdict form
as "improperly drafted" has long since passed.
- 25 -
court abused its discretion in rejecting this position. See Boston
Gas, 708 F.3d at 259-64.
In the end, we acknowledge as anyone must that the
December 19, 1983 start date has a make believe quality. Lean
evidence has been the nemesis of this case from the inception of
the litigation. But the district court did not abuse its
discretion, on this record, in construing the jury's findings in
a manner that maximizes U.S. Fire's indemnity exposure in line
with its burden under Polaroid.
C.
U.S. Fire next argues that the district court erred in
opting to apply a fact-based method for allocation rather than the
default time-on-the-risk method. In so deciding, the court adopted
the Museum's post-trial revised expert report which projected that
9,000 square feet of soil damage occurred during the two-year
policy period. See Peabody Essex Museum, 2011 WL 3759728, at *1.
This calculation relied on the assumption that the 10,000-gallon
oil release began on December 19, 1983, the start date selected by
the court, and definitively ceased in June 1986 when the oil tanks
were removed from the ground.15
U.S. Fire contends that the revised report cannot
support a fact-based allocation because the December 19, 1983 start
15The parties agreed that oil migration continued to cause
property damage after the tanks were removed from the ground.
- 26 -
date is purely fictional. It also faults the district court for
considering U.S. Fire's indemnity burden under Polaroid when
assessing whether the report's estimation of the spread of oil
warranted a fact-based approach. Again, we are not persuaded of
any reversible error.16
In deciding Boston Gas, the SJC granted trial courts
considerable leeway in selecting between time-on-the-risk and
fact-based allocation in progressive pollution cases. Boston Gas,
910 N.E.2d at 316. Courts face this choice in complex cases in
which the factual events are already thickly clouded by evidentiary
uncertainty, see id. at 300-02, 305; the ultimate decision requires
a careful review of the intricacies of the case as well as
equitable considerations, see id. at 316; see also New Eng.
Insulation Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 988 N.E.2d 450, 454 (Mass.
App. Ct. 2013). The SJC emphasized that it favors a fact-based
approach as more reflective of the parties' contractual
obligations, explaining that this method should be applied where
the record contains "evidence more closely approximating the
actual distribution of property damage" than time-on-the-risk
calculations. Boston Gas, 910 N.E.2d at 293. Thus, fact-based
allocation should apply when "a more accurate estimation" of the
16While the district court relied on two expert reports
proffered by the Museum, U.S. Fire's appeal relates only to the
report that we discuss.
- 27 -
quantum of property damage that took place during the triggered
policy years is "feasible." Id. at 314, 316.
As we have noted, mooring the start of the property
damage to the commencement of the policy period on December 19,
1983 indeed bears a fictional quality. The revised report,
however, adopted that start date as previously determined by the
district court in its 2010 order, which was generally based on the
evidence and on the jury's findings. Although the Polaroid burden-
shifting rule also influenced the start date finding, that date is
no less a factual finding under the circumstances of this case.
No more is required under Boston Gas. Cf. Boston Gas, 708 F.3d at
259, 260 (holding that the trial court's decision to apply time-
on-the-risk was "reasonable" because the record would not allow a
factfinder to specify damages "in time and degree with any level
of certainty" (emphasis added)).
Neither did the district court err in considering U.S.
Fire's burden under Polaroid when evaluating the estimation of the
spread of the oil plume. The court faced the allocation method
question in a case not only rife with the normal problems of proof
in progressive pollution cases, see Boston Gas, 910 N.E.2d at 316,
but also couched in an atypical legal setting in which the
insurance company had controlled the evidentiary template during
- 28 -
the indemnity trial.17 In short, we cannot say that it was error
for the district court to hew to the Polaroid rule, which compels
insurance companies to shoulder the indemnity share that is
associated with proof problems when that company defaulted on its
duty to defend.
In the final analysis, the district court judge -- who
had presided over the entirety of the litigation through the August
2011 order -- confronted two somewhat unsatisfactory factual
situations in selecting the appropriate allocation method.18 After
a careful scrutiny of the complexities, we see no sound reason for
disturbing the court's discretionary decision that fact-based
allocation aligned closer to the evidence and the equities in this
case.19
17
Tellingly, U.S. Fire remained silent in the face of the
Museum's post-trial accusation that the insurer had never pursued
any discovery on the duration of contamination respecting the
underground oil tanks.
18
Two district court judges presided over the lengthy
litigation. Judge Gertner resolved the bulk of the merits while
presiding from 2006 through August 2011, and Judge Gorton resolved
the tail-end of the matter such as the inevitable motions for
reconsideration, modification of judgment, attorney's fees, and
prejudgment interest.
19
U.S. Fire's assorted complaints about the district court's
"silence" respecting the revised report's "series of assumptions"
ring hollow. Its assertions fail to account for the court's
implicit adoption of the Museum's responsive pleadings and
exhibits, recapitulate the "artificial" start date argument, and
otherwise ignore the trial testimony including that of its own
expert.
- 29 -
D.
As a final allocation matter, U.S. Fire contends that
the district court erred in ruling that defense costs for the
public claim are not subject to time-on-the-risk proration under
Boston Gas. U.S. Fire acknowledges that the SJC did not reach the
question of whether or how defense costs should be prorated, and
its argument on appeal is not robust. See Powell v. Tompkins, 783
F.3d 332, 348-49 (1st Cir. 2015) (explaining appellate waiver).
We go only so far as the argument takes us, which is not far enough
to divvy up defense costs here.
U.S. Fire briefly offers two "significant indicators"
from Boston Gas to support its pitch that defense costs should be
prorated: the SJC's citation to case law that applies time-on-the-
risk proration to both defense costs and indemnity,20 and the SJC's
decision to apply proration principles to self-insured retentions
which, U.S. Fire points out, generally include defense and
indemnity. These supposed indicators, however, appear diminutive
20 U.S. Fire identifies just one case cited in Boston Gas,
which is readily distinguishable from the circumstances at hand.
In Insurance Company of North America v. Forty-Eight Insulations,
Inc., the Sixth Circuit prorated defense costs to avoid a
troublesome scenario in which the insured manufacturer, "which had
insurance coverage for only one year out of 20[,] would be entitled
to a complete defense of [about 1,300 different] asbestos actions
the same as a manufacturer which had coverage for 20 years out of
20." 633 F.2d 1212, 1225 (6th Cir. 1980); cf. GMAC Mortg., LLC,
985 N.E.2d at 827 (noting that the complete defense rule typically
applies for claims asserted in the same lawsuit).
- 30 -
next to long-standing state precedent on the broad and formidable
contractual duty to defend that heavily favors insureds and that
stands apart from indemnity obligations. See, e.g., GMAC Mortg.,
LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 985 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Mass. 2013);
Doe v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 667 N.E.2d 1149, 1151 (Mass. 1996);
see also Dryden Oil Co. of New England, Inc. v. Travelers Indem.
Co., 91 F.3d 278, 282 (1st Cir. 1996) (noting that under
Massachusetts law, "[t]he duty to indemnify is defined less
generously [than the duty to defend] as it depends on the evidence,
rather than an expansive view of the complaint" (internal citation
omitted)). And duty to defend protection is all-encompassing.
See GMAC Mortg., LLC, 985 N.E.2d at 827 (explaining the "in for
one, in for all" or "complete defense" rule that applies to
insurers in the general liability insurance context); Deutsche
Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 991 N.E.2d 638, 641-
42, n.10 (Mass. 2013); see also Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Met. Life
Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 54, 63-64 (1st Cir. 2001) (reviewing
Massachusetts law on allocation of defense costs generally); Chi.
Bridge & Iron Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 797
N.E.2d 434, 444-45 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003) (refusing to allocate
defense costs where the litigation relating to contamination sites
covered under the policy also resolved liability questions for
sites that were not).
- 31 -
Even narrowing our view to Boston Gas itself, we observe
that the SJC carefully circumscribed its decision to the indemnity
allocation questions that were before it. See, e.g., 910 N.E.2d
at 301, 311 n.38.21 And, in its allocation analysis -- including
the self-insured retention discussion -- the state court placed
significant weight on the specific language embodied in the
indemnity provisions of the policy before it. Id. at 304-09, 315-
16.
In short, we decline U.S. Fire's invitation to extend
the Boston Gas allocation holding to defense costs in this case,
particularly where the insurance company has made no attempt to
address its own policy language on the duty to defend. Cf. id. at
306 n.33 (referring to cited policy language that expressly
provided for proration of defense costs). After all, U.S. Fire
pursued removal of this case from state court to federal court,
and "[w]e have warned, time and again, that litigants who reject
a state forum in [favor of] federal court under diversity
jurisdiction cannot expect that new state-law trails will be
blazed" by the federal court. Carlton v. Worcester Ins. Co., 923
21We are aware that at least one district court decision
appears to have interpreted Boston Gas as endorsing allocation of
defense costs. See Graphic Arts Mut. Ins. Co. v. D.N. Lukens,
Inc., No. 11-CV-10460, 2013 WL 2384333, at *7 (D. Mass. May 29,
2013) (Hillman, J.). That decision does not, however, address the
robust, contrary state law precedent on the contractual duty to
defend. And U.S. Fire does not rely on Graphic Arts for this
argument.
- 32 -
F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks and brackets
omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's September
2010 and August 2011 allocation rulings that the parties have
challenged on appeal.
IV.
U.S. Fire appeals the district court's Chapter 93A
ruling that it knowingly and willfully failed to effect a fair
settlement for the unreimbursed defense costs after the court
issued the 2007 order on its defense default. See Peabody Essex
Museum, Inc., 2011 WL 3759728, at *2; see also Mass. Gen. Laws ch.
93A, §§ 2, 11. The court's ruling was grounded in the business-
to-business provision under Chapter 93A, § 11, as the Museum had
pitched its claim. After reviewing the litigation record22 and
governing state law, we conclude that reversal is required because
the court's decision rests on a legal error and the record does
not, as a matter of law, support a finding of unfair settlement
conduct actionable under Chapter 93A. See Fed. Ins. Co. v. HPSC,
Inc., 480 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2007); Ahern v. Scholz, 85 F.3d
774, 797 (1st Cir. 1996).
22 We have considered the materials that both parties provided
to the district court, mindful that U.S. Fire does not press before
us the evidentiary objection about the settlement documents that
was raised below.
- 33 -
Chapter 93A precludes "unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of trade or commerce" and penalizes
"willful or knowing" violations with awards of multiple damages.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, §§ 2, 9, 11; see Barron Chiropractic &
Rehab. v. Norfolk & Dedham Grp., 17 N.E.3d 1056, 1065-66 (Mass.
2014) (describing pertinent factors). To be actionable, the
challenged misconduct must rise to the level of an "extreme or
egregious" business wrong, "commercial extortion," or similar
level of "rascality" that raises "an eyebrow of someone inured to
the rough and tumble of the world of commerce." Baker v. Goldman
Sachs & Co., 771 F.3d 37, 49-51 (1st Cir. 2014); Zabin v.
Picciotto, 896 N.E.2d 937, 963 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). The core
inquiry focuses on "the nature of challenged conduct and on the
purpose and effect of that conduct." Mass. Emp'rs Ins. Exch. v.
Propac-Mass, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 435, 438 (Mass. 1995).
In the insurance context, business misconduct that is
actionable under Chapter 93A may include unfair settlement
practices that are defined under Chapter 176D, § 3. Hallmarks of
such misconduct generally involve the "absence of good faith and
the presence of extortionate tactics." Guity v. Commerce Ins.
Co., 631 N.E.2d 75, 77–78 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994). Such
circumstances include withholding payment from the insured and
"stringing out the process" by using shifting, specious defenses
with the intent to force the insured into an unfavorable
- 34 -
settlement. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Seven Provinces Ins.
Co., 217 F.3d 33, 40 (1st Cir. 2000) (providing examples under
Massachusetts law). By contrast, neither a good faith dispute
over billing, nor the mere failure to settle a claim when another
reasonably prudent insurer would have done so, establishes Chapter
93A liability. See id. at 43; see generally Hartford Cas. Ins.
Co. v. N.H. Ins. Co., 628 N.E.2d 14, 17-18 (Mass. 1994).
Rather than apply these Chapter 93A standards, the
district court solely relied on an unfair settlement practice
provision under Chapter 176D as the litmus test for finding Chapter
93A, § 11 business-to-business liability. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch.
176D, § 3(9)(f) (proscribing the failure "to effectuate prompt,
fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has
become reasonably clear"). However, unlike consumer claims under
Chapter 93A, § 9, a violation of Chapter 176D constitutes only
probative evidence, not per se proof, of egregious business
misconduct for a Chapter 93A, § 11 business-to-business claim.
See Polaroid Corp., 610 N.E.2d at 917; Transamerica Ins. Grp. v.
Turner Constr. Co., 601 N.E.2d 473, 477 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992).
The district court did not recognize this well-established legal
distinction under state law. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 9(1);
see also Hopkins v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 750 N.E.2d 943, 950
n.12 (Mass. 2001) (explaining 1979 amendment to Ch. 93A, § 9
- 35 -
consumer-to-business claims). Accordingly, its ruling on Chapter
93A, § 11 liability contains a legal error.
Moreover, the record does not display the type of
egregious settlement malfeasance that may be actionable under
Chapter 93A, § 11. The district court targeted, albeit through
the Chapter 176D lens, two aspects of U.S. Fire's conduct: its
fractional payment as of June 2009 (about $9,000) of significant
defense costs then-incurred by the Museum and its subsequent
failure to reach a fair settlement on the remaining amount, forcing
the Museum to continue to litigate defense costs. The district
court's view of the record, however, is too constricted.
In fact, U.S. Fire immediately pursued mediation for
defense costs after the court's December 2007 decision, which had
left open pertinent surrounding issues.23 But the Museum resisted,
desirous of a global settlement despite the fact that no expert
evidence on the indemnity issues had yet been procured at that
point. After discovery, the parties participated in two
significant efforts for formal mediation throughout 2009, and U.S.
Fire continued taking active steps to resolve the defense costs
issue in the midst of a variety of entangled disputes. See Premier
23 The open defense costs issues included, for example, the
reasonableness of the hourly rate charged by Ropes & Gray, the
relationship between the public claim and the Heritage Plaza
private demand, and the division between defense costs and
indemnity respecting ENSR's then-completed work.
- 36 -
Ins. Co. of Mass. v. Furtado, 703 N.E.2d 208, 210 (Mass. 1998);
Duclersaint v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 696 N.E.2d 536, 540 (Mass.
1998). On the whole, the unreimbursed defense costs issue was
shuffled into the broader panoramic of on-going, complex
litigation which included the potential legal responsibility of
the Museum's other insurers. See Cullen Enters., Inc. v. Mass.
Prop. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, 507 N.E.2d 717, 723 (Mass. 1987);
Waste Mgmt. of Mass., Inc. v. Carver, 642 N.E.2d 1058, 1061 (Mass.
App. Ct. 1994).
There is simply no evidence that the delay in paying
unreimbursed defense costs was attributable to nefarious
leveraging conduct or motives on U.S. Fire's part. See Boston
Symphony Orchestra, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 545 N.E.2d
1156, 1160 (Mass. 1989); cf. N. Sec. Ins. Co., 941 N.E.2d at 692.
In fact, at one point, when U.S. Fire challenged the Museum's
calculation of interest for unreimbursed defense costs in 2009,
the Museum averred "futility [in] submitting further bills" given
U.S. Fire's oversight, years earlier, with respect to the first
billing packet that the Museum had sent in 2005. When efforts
toward global settlement ultimately failed, U.S. Fire offered the
Museum a significant sum to settle the unreimbursed defense costs
and associated issues, which apparently went unanswered. Then, in
June 2011, the Museum spotlighted -- for the first time -- U.S.
- 37 -
Fire's post-2007 settlement conduct as the primary impetus for
Chapter 93A, § 11 liability and punitive damages.
U.S. Fire's conduct under these circumstances is not the
kind that the SJC has condemned as egregious settlement misconduct
that is actionable under Chapter 93A. Cf. R.W. Granger & Sons,
Inc. v. J & S Insulation, Inc., 754 N.E.2d 668, 678-79 (Mass. 2001)
(holding that the surety's conduct of unexplained delay, hollow
settlement effort, and groundless legal stance comprised culpable
unfair business conduct under Chapter 93A).
By no means do we endorse some of the gamesmanship that
laces the protracted litigation. But the Museum's own posturing
is not unimportant to the Chapter 93A inquiry. See Parker v.
D'Avolio, 664 N.E.2d 858, 864 n.9 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996)
(emphasizing in the Chapter 93A context that good faith is a
reciprocal responsibility between an insurer and an insured); see
also Ahern, 85 F.3d at 798 (noting that the Chapter 93A calculus
considers "the equities between the parties, including what both
parties knew or should have known").
Even if some measure of U.S. Fire's conduct may have
been ill-advised, and perhaps even violative of Chapter 176D, we
hold that this record does not invoke the potent weaponry of
Chapter 93A.24 Additionally, we deem waived the Chapter 93A
24 Our analysis assumes, without deciding, that in certain
instances settlement conduct during the course of ongoing
- 38 -
theories set forth in the 2006 complaint that the Museum failed to
pursue in its 2011 pleadings. Finally, any continued reliance on
U.S. Fire's failure to pay defense costs prior to the December
2007 order also fails as a matter of law since the record fails to
show that the insurance company's conduct, while amounting to a
contractual breach, was purposed by the kind of nefarious
leveraging that may give rise to Chapter 93A, § 11 liability. Cf.
N. Sec. Ins. Co., 941 N.E.2d at 692-93; Mass. Emp'rs Ins. Exch.,
648 N.E.2d at 438.
Accordingly, we reverse the district court's decision
that U.S. Fire violated Chapter 93A, § 11 and vacate the award of
punitive damages, fees, costs and statutory interest associated
with the Chapter 93A claim. Our holding obviates any need to
address the punitive damages issues debated by the parties pursuant
to Rhodes v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., 961 N.E.2d 1067 (Mass.
2012) and Auto Flat Car Crushers, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 17
N.E.3d 1066 (Mass. 2014).
V.
Two final miscellaneous matters go nowhere. First, the
Museum appeals the district court's decision declining to award it
attorney's fees for litigating the scope of defense obligations
litigation may give rise to Chapter 93A liability. Compare
Morrison v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., 806 N.E.2d 388, 391 (Mass. 2004),
with Commercial Union Ins. Co., 217 F.3d at 41 n.5.
- 39 -
after the 2007 summary judgment order. Its appellate arguments
depend on the success of its Chapter 93A claim and, thus, are
rendered moot by our reversal of the district court's decision.
To the extent that the Museum attempts to pursue arguments
unrelated to its Chapter 93A success below, we deem them waived
for insufficient briefing. See Powell, 783 F.3d at 348-49.
Second, U.S. Fire appeals the district court's decision
denying its motion to amend its 2006 third-party complaint against
ACE. U.S. Fire's 2009 motion sought to transform the original
single-count complaint into a five-count complaint enforcing an
alleged express or implied contractual agreement for sharing
defense costs between the two insurance companies. We detect no
abuse of discretion in the district court's decision given that
the 2006 third-party complaint had already failed on the merits
months earlier.25 Additionally, U.S. Fire's 2009 pitch of newly
discovered facts is undermined both by its own express allegations
in the original complaint and by its apparent failure to pursue
timely discovery from the inception of that 2006 third-party
complaint. See Lombardo v. Lombardo, 755 F.3d 1, 3-4 (1st Cir.
25
In its March 2009 summary judgment order, the district
court granted ACE's motion for summary judgment due to U.S. Fire's
insufficient proof that the oil release was "sudden and accidental"
under ACE's 1980-1983 policy. See Peabody Essex Museum, 623 F.
Supp. 2d at 112.
- 40 -
2014); Steir v. Girl Scouts of the USA, 383 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir.
2004).
VI.
To summarize, we affirm the district court's December
2007 ruling that U.S. Fire breached its duty to defend and its
September 2010 and August 2011 allocation rulings that are
challenged on appeal. We reverse the district court's August 2011
finding of Chapter 93A liability and vacate its associated award
of punitive damages. We also vacate the award of attorney's fees,
costs, and statutory interest and remand for appropriate
recalculation consistent with this opinion. Parties to bear their
own appellate costs.
- 41 -