Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Stratford Insurance Company, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Stratford Insurance Company, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/38

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 14- 117914- 1229

OLD REPUBLI C I NSURANCE COMPANY,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant , Cr oss- Appel l ee,

v.

STRATFORD I NSURANCE COMPANY,

Def endant , Appel l ee, Cr oss- Appel l ant .

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF NEW HAMPSHI RE

[ Hon. Landya McCaf f er t y, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Howard and Barr on, Ci r cui t J udges.

Dani el W. Gerber , wi t h whom J onathan L. Schwart z, Gol dber gSegal l a LLP, Naomi L. Get man, Andr ew R. Schul man, and Get man,Schul t hess & St eer e, P. A. wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant , cross-appel l ee.

Laur ence J . Rabi novi ch, wi t h whom Hi scock & Bar cl ay LLP,Ri char d C. Nel son, and Nel son Ki nder & Mosseau PC were on br i ef ,

f or appel l ee, cross- appel l ant .

J anuar y 26, 2015


2/38

LYNCH, Chief Judge. Thi s appeal ar i ses out of a di sput e

bet ween t wo i nsur er s as t o t hei r r espect i ve dut i es t o def end and

i ndemni f y a t r act or - t r ai l er i nvol ved i n an aut o col l i si on causi ng

ser i ous i nj ur i es. The owner of t he t r act or , Ryder Tr uck Rent al s

( "Ryder " ) , obt ai ned pr i mar y i nsur ance f or t he t r act or t hr ough Ol d

Republ i c I nsurance Company ( "Ol d Republ i c" ) . The oper ator of t he

t r act or , DAM Expr ess ( "DAM") , obt ai ned separ at e i nsur ance t hr ough

St r at f ord I nsur ance Company ( "St r at f or d" ) . Ol d Republ i c br ought

t hi s sui t t o det er mi ne St r at f or d' s i nsur ance obl i gat i ons.

The f i r st quest i on i s whether t he St r at f or d Pol i cy i s co-

pr i mar y wi t h the cover age pr ovi ded by Ol d Republ i c f or t he t r act or

l eased f r om Ryder . The answer hi nges on t he i nt ent of t he

cont r act i ng par t i es, and, mor e speci f i cal l y, on whi ch sour ces a

cour t may consul t t o determi ne t hat i nt ent under New Hampshi r e l aw.

We concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed no l egal er r or i n

consi der i ng t he St r at f or d Pol i cy as a whol e and t ur ni ng t o

obj ect i ve ext r i nsi c evi dence t o r esol ve i nconsi st enci es f ound

t her ei n. We af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on t hat DAM and

St r at f or d never i nt ended t he St r at f or d Pol i cy t o pr ovi de pr i mar y

cover age t o t he t r actor ot her wi se cover ed by Ol d Republ i c.

We must t hen det er mi ne St r at f ord' s corr espondi ng dut y t o

def end as an excess i nsur er of t he t r act or . The answer i s f ar f r om

cl ear under New Hampshi r e l aw. The di st r i ct cour t i nt er pr et ed a

New Hampshi r e case f r om 1991 as est abl i shi ng a rul e whereby an

-2-


3/38

i nsur er ' s dut y t o def end i s t he same r egar dl ess of whet her i t s

desi gnat i on i s as pr i mar y or excess. Af t er a cl ose anal ysi s of New

Hampshi r e pr ecedent , we concl ude t hat t he best cour se of act i on i s

t o cer t i f y t hi s quest i on of New Hampshi r e l aw t o the New Hampshi r e

Supr eme Cour t .

I . Fact ual Backgr ound

On Apr i l 7, 2010, a t r act or - t r ai l er cr ashed i nt o Dani el

and Kar l a Bendor ' s vehi cl e i n Connect i cut , causi ng bodi l y i nj ur y.

The t r act or was owned by Ryder , who had l eased i t t o DAM i n or der

t o t r anspor t a t r ai l er owned by Coca- Col a. The dr i ver , Ant oi ne

Gi r gi nof f , was empl oyed by DAM.

DAM i s a f or - hi r e motor company whi ch oper at es out of

Manchest er , New Hampshi r e. As descr i bed by t he of f i ce manager ,

DAM' s wor k "f al l s i nt o t wo cat egor i es. " " One cat egor y i s smal l

package del i ver y such as consumer goods whi ch i s conduct ed i n vans

and smal l t r ucks owned by D. A. M. " When busi ness i s part i cul ar l y

busy, DAM r ent s an ext r a van of a si mi l ar t ype, f or appr oxi mat el y

$5, 000 per year . "The second cat egor y [ i s] t r anspor t at i on of

l ar ger shi pment s i n t r act or - t r ai l er s. " DAM l eases t hese t r act or s

f r om Ryder f or appr oxi mat el y $240, 000 per year .

DAM and Ryder ' s l ease agr eement speci f i ed t hat Ryder was

r esponsi bl e f or obt ai ni ng l i abi l i t y i nsur ance f or t he t r actor. The

l ease agr eement r eads:

A. Li abi l i t y I nsur ance. The par t y desi gnat edon Schedul e A ( t he "I nsur i ng Par t y" ) agr ees t o

-3-


4/38

f ur ni sh and mai nt ai n, at i t s sol e cost , apol i cy of aut omobi l e l i abi l i t y i nsur ance wi t hl i mi t s speci f i ed on each Schedul e A f or deat h,bodi l y i nj ur y and pr oper t y damage, cover i ngboth you and Ryder as i nsureds f or t heowner shi p, mai nt enance, use, and oper at i on of

each Vehi cl e ( "Li abi l i t y I nsur ance") . . . .The Li abi l i t y I nsur ance must provi de t hat i t scover age i s pr i mar y and not addi t i onal orexcess coverage over i nsurance ot her wi seavai l abl e t o ei t her par t y . . . . TheI nsur i ng Par t y agr ees t o desi gnat e t he ot herpar t y as an addi t i onal i nsur ed on t heLi abi l i t y I nsurance . . . .

On t he f or m t i t l ed "Schedul e A, " t he I nsur i ng Par t y i s i dent i f i ed

as Ryder al one. DAM agr eed t hat "Ryder shal l have t he sol e r i ght

t o conduct acci dent i nvest i gat i ons and admi ni st er cl ai ms handl i ng

and set t l ement s and [ DAM] shal l adhere t o and accept Ryder ' s

concl usi ons and deci si ons. "

Ryder obt ai ned l i abi l i t y i nsur ance f r om Ol d Republ i c,

under whi ch Ol d Republ i c agr eed to "pay al l sums an ' i nsured'

l egal l y must pay as damages because of ' bodi l y i nj ur y' or ' pr oper t y

damage' t o whi ch t hi s i nsur ance appl i es, caused by an ' acci dent '

and resul t i ng f r om t he owner shi p, mai nt enance or use of a cover ed

' aut o' " and t o "def end any ' sui t ' aski ng f or t hese damages. "

" I nsur eds" i ncl uded Ryder " f or any cover ed ' aut o' " and " [ a] ny

per son or or gani zat i on f or whom [ Ryder ] i s obl i gat ed by wr i t t en

agr eement t o pr ovi de l i abi l i t y i nsur ance . . . . " Cover ed "aut os"

i ncl uded "any ' aut o, ' " t he def i ni t i on of whi ch i ncl uded

"' [ t ] r ai l er s' wi t h a l oad capaci t y of 2000 pounds or l ess desi gned

-4-


5/38

pr i mar i l y f or t r avel on publ i c r oads. " For a cover age l i mi t of

$1, 000, 000, Ryder pai d a pr emi um of $459, 961.

I n a sect i on t i t l ed "Ot her I nsur ance, " Ol d Republ i c

speci f i ed: "For any cover ed ' aut o' you own, t hi s Cover age For m

pr ovi des pr i mar y i nsur ance. " "However , whi l e a cover ed ' aut o'

whi ch i s a ' t r ai l er ' i s connected t o anot her vehi cl e, t he Li abi l i t y

Cover age t hi s Cover age For m pr ovi des f or t he ' t r ai l er ' i s: . . .

[ p] r i mar y whi l e i t i s connect ed t o a cover ed ' aut o' you own. "

DAM separ at el y obt ai ned i nsur ance f r om St r at f or d.

St r at f or d agr eed t o "pay al l sums an ' i nsur ed' l egal l y must pay as

damages because of ' bodi l y i nj ur y' or ' pr oper t y damage' t o whi ch

t hi s i nsur ance appl i es, caused by an ' acci dent ' and r esul t i ng f r om

t he owner shi p, mai nt enance or use of a cover ed ' aut o, ' " and t o

"def end any ' i nsur ed' agai nst a ' sui t ' aski ng f or such damages. "

The St r at f or d Pol i cy speci f i ed t hree cat egor i es of vehi cl es as

cover ed "aut os: " ( 1) "speci f i cal l y descr i bed ' aut os, ' " ( 2) "hi r ed

' aut os, ' " and ( 3) "nonowned ' aut os. ' " For a maxi mum cover age of

$1, 000, 000, DAM pai d a pr emi um of $4, 808.

"Speci f i cal l y descri bed ' aut os' " ar e def i ned as "[ o] nl y

t hose ' aut os' descr i bed i n I t emThr ee of t he Decl ar at i ons f or whi ch

a pr emi um char ge i s shown ( and f or Li abi l i t y Cover age any

' t r ai l er s' [ DAM doesn' t ] own whi l e at t ached t o any power uni t

descr i bed i n I t emThr ee) . " I t emThr ee l i st s two Chevy Expr ess vans

and "any nonowned t r ai l er whi l e at t ached t o a cover ed aut o. "

-5-


6/38

"Hi r ed ' aut os' " ar e def i ned as " [ o] nl y t hose ' aut os' [ DAM]

l ease[ s] , hi r e[ s] , r ent [ s] or bor r ow[ s] . " I n I t em Four , DAM

est i mat ed t he cost of hi r e of t hese aut os t o be $5, 000 per year .

The $5, 000 per year est i mat e yi el ded a l i abi l i t y premi um of $400.

"Nonowned ' aut os' " ar e def i ned as " [ o] nl y t hose ' aut os' [ DAM]

do[ es] not own, l ease, hi r e, r ent or bor r ow t hat ar e used i n

connect i on wi t h [ DAM' s] busi ness. "

I n t he "Ot her I nsur ance" sect i on, t he St r at f or d Pol i cy

speci f i es t hat i t pr ovi des pr i mar y cover age f or aut os t hat f al l

i nt o one of t hese t hr ee cat egor i es of cover ed aut os. I t r eads:

Thi s Coverage For m' s Li abi l i t y Coverage i spr i mar y f or any cover ed "aut o" whi l e hi r ed orbor r owed by [ DAM] and used excl usi vel y i n[ DAM' s] busi ness as a "t r ucker " and pur suantt o oper at i ng r i ght s grant ed t o [ DAM] by apubl i c aut hor i t y. Thi s Cover age For m' sLi abi l i t y Cover age i s excess over any ot hercol l ect i bl e i nsur ance f or any cover ed "aut o"whi l e hi r ed or bor r owed f r om [ DAM] by another" t r ucker . " However , whi l e a cover ed "aut o"whi ch i s a "t r ai l er " i s connect ed t o a poweruni t , t hi s Cover age For m' s Li abi l i t y Cover agei s:

( 1) On t he same basi s, pr i mary or excess, asf or t he power uni t i f t he power uni t i s acover ed "aut o".

( 2) Excess i f t he power uni t i s not a cover ed"aut o" .

The Bendor s sued Ryder , DAM, and Gi r gi nof f i n f eder al

cour t i n Connect i cut on December 3, 2010, f or damages i n connect i on

-6-


7/38

wi t h t he Apr i l 7, 2010, acci dent . 1 As r equi r ed by i t s pol i cy wi t h

Ryder , Ol d Republ i c i mmedi at el y began pr ovi di ng a def ense. I n

Mar ch 2011, Ol d Republ i c asked St r at f or d t o par t i ci pat e i n t he

def ense of i t s i nsur eds.

I n August 2011, af t er l ear ni ng about t he under l yi ng

l awsui t , St r at f or d pr oposed a gener al change endor sement t o i t s

pol i cy wi t h DAM t hat was r et r oact i vel y "ef f ect i ve on t he i ncept i on

dat e of t he pol i cy. " That endor sement speci f i ed: "For a cover ed

' aut o' l eased or r ent ed t o [DAM] by [ Ryder ] or any rel at ed ent i t y,

LI ABI LI TY COVERAGE i s excess over any ot her col l ect i bl e i nsur ance. "

St r at f or d and DAM execut ed t he agr eement on November 29, 2011.

By l et t er dated December 1, 2011, St r at f ord i nf ormed Ol d

Republ i c t hat i t had no obl i gat i on t o shar e i n t he cost of

def endi ng or i ndemni f yi ng i t s i nsur eds agai nst t he under l yi ng

l awsui t . St r at f or d' s Seni or Li t i gat i on Speci al i st , Sandr a

McFar l ane, wr ot e t hat t he "endor sement r ef l ect s [ DAM] ' s

under st andi ng t hat [ i t ] had opt ed t o pur chase pr i mar y i nsur ance f or

[ i t s] Ryder vehi cl es t hr ough Ryder . " McFar l ane st at ed t hat " [ a] ny

cover age pr ovi ded t o ei t her DAM or Mr . Gi r gi nof f by St r at f or d i s

excess t o t he cover age pr ovi ded by Ryder and/ or Ol d Republ i c. " For

t hi s r eason, McFar l ane t ook t he posi t i on t hat "St r at f or d i s

not . . . obl i gat ed t o, and wi l l not , shar e i n t he cost of

def endi ng or i ndemni f yi ng [ t hei r ] mut ual i nsur eds at t hi s t i me. "

1 Coca- Col a was subsequent l y added as a def endant .

-7-


8/38

I I . Present Li t i gat i on

Ol d Republ i c f i l ed sui t agai nst St r at f or d on J une 1,

2012, i n st ate cour t i n New Hampshi r e. Ol d Republ i c sought a

decl arat ory j udgment pur suant t o New Hampshi r e Revi sed St at ut e

491: 22 et seq. t hat Ol d Republ i c and St r at f or d have co- pr i mar y

obl i gat i ons t o def end and i ndemni f y DAM, Gi r gi nof f , and Coca- Col a,

wi t h accompanyi ng cl ai ms f or equi t abl e r ef or mat i on, unj ust

enr i chment , and wai ver and est oppel . St r at f ord r emoved t he case t o

t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of New Hampshi r e,

and count er cl ai med f or a decl aratory j udgment t hat Ol d Republ i c

pr ovi des pr i mary cover age, and St r at f ord pr ovi des excess cover age,

f or t he l i abi l i t y of DAM, Gi r gi nof f , and Coca- Col a.

The di st r i ct cour t grant ed i n par t and deni ed i n par t

both part i es' mot i ons f or summary j udgment . Ol d Republ i c I ns. Co.

v. St r at f ord I ns. Co. , No. 12- cv- 256- LM, 2014 WL 309390, at *1

( D. N. H. J an. 27, 2014) . The di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat , as t o

t he t r act or , "t he St r at f or d pol i cy, as i ni t i al l y i ssued, di d not

r equi r e St r at f or d t o pr ovi de pr i mar y cover age f or any l osses t hat

may ensue i n t he under l yi ng act i on. " I d. at *5. Never t hel ess,

"because St r at f or d concedes t hat i t s pol i cy pr ovi des excess

cover age, " t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat St r at f or d "i s obl i gat ed t o

shar e equal l y i n t he cost s of def endi ng i t s i nsur eds i n t he

under l yi ng act i on. " I d. at *7. Ol d Republ i c' s addi t i onal cl ai ms

-8-


9/38

f or equi t abl e r ef or mat i on, unj ust enr i chment , and wai ver and

est oppel wer e di smi ssed. I d.

Bot h par t i es appeal ed. Ol d Republ i c ar gues t hat " t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n f i ndi ng t hat cover age under t he St r at f or d

Pol i cy i s excess over cover age under t he [ Ol d Republ i c] Pol i cy. "

Accor di ng t o Ol d Republ i c, t he pl ai n l anguage of t he or i gi nal

pol i cy made St r at f or d' s cover age pr i mar y as t o t he t r act or i n

addi t i on t o i t s own, and t he subsequent endorsement changi ng t he

cover age t o excess i s i nval i d and unenf or ceabl e. St r at f or d def ends

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s hol di ng t hat i t i s an excess i nsur er , but

cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n r equi r i ng i t t o shar e

equal l y t he cost s of def ense nonet hel ess.

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of summary j udgment

under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56 de novo, and af f i r m "onl y

i f t he r ecor d di scl oses no genui ne i ssue as t o any mat er i al f act

and t he movi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. "

Tr opi gas de P. R. , I nc. v. Cer t ai n Under wr i t er s at Ll oyd' s of

London, 637 F. 3d 53, 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . I n t hi s anal ysi s, we vi ew

t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he nonmovi ng par t y and

dr aw al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n t hat par t y' s f avor . I d. The

pr esence of cr oss- mot i ons f or summary j udgment does not af f ect t hi s

anal ysi s. Scot t sdal e I ns. Co. v. Tor r es, 561 F. 3d 74, 77 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) .

-9-


10/38

I I I . St r at f or d' s Cover age

I n New Hampshi r e, " [ t ] he f undament al goal of i nt er pr et i ng

an i nsur ance pol i cy, as i n al l cont r act s, i s t o car r y out t he

i nt ent of t he cont r act i ng par t i es. " Bat es v. Pheni x Mut . Fi r e I ns.

Co. , 943 A. 2d 750, 752- 53 ( N. H. 2008) ( quot i ng Tech- Bui l t 153, I nc.

v. Va. Sur . Co. , 898 A. 2d 1007, 1009 ( N. H. 2006) ) ; see al so Hansen

v. Sent r y I ns. Co. , 756 F. 3d 53, 61 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . Anal yzi ng t he

l anguage of t he pol i cy and an ext r i nsi c agr eement , t he di st r i ct

cour t concl uded t hat DAM and St r at f or d never i nt ended t o pr ovi de

co- pr i mar y cover age t o t he t r act or DAM l eased f r om Ryder . Ol d

Republ i c, 2014 WL 309390, at *5- 6.

The key quest i on here under New Hampshi r e l aw i s what

sour ces a cour t may consul t - - and i n what ci r cumst ances - - t o

ascer t ai n t he par t i es' i nt ent f or cover age. "The i nt er pr et at i on of

a cont r act , i ncl udi ng whet her a cont r act t er m i s ambi guous, i s

ul t i mat el y a quest i on of l aw . . . . " Bi r ch Br oad. , I nc. v.

Capi t ol Br oad. Cor p. , 13 A. 3d 224, 228 ( N. H. 2010) . " [ T] o

det er mi ne what t he par t i es, as r easonabl e peopl e, mut ual l y

underst ood t he ambi guous l anguage t o mean necessar i l y i nvol ves

f actual f i ndi ngs . . . . " I d.

Our sear ch f or t he par t i es' i nt ent as t o t he cover age of

t he t r act or begi ns wi t h t he wor ds of t he pol i cy i t sel f . Bat es, 943

A. 2d at 753. The New Hampshi r e Supreme Cour t r ecent l y summar i zed:

I n i nt er pr et i ng pol i cy l anguage, we l ook t o t hepl ai n and or di nar y meani ng of t he pol i cy' s

-10-


11/38

words i n cont ext . We const r ue t he t er ms of t hepol i cy as woul d a r easonabl e per son i n theposi t i on of t he i nsur ed based upon more t han acasual r eadi ng of t he pol i cy as a whol e.Pol i cy t er ms ar e const r ued obj ect i vel y, andwher e t he t er ms of a pol i cy ar e cl ear and

unambi guous, we accor d t he l anguage i t s nat ur aland or di nar y meani ng. . . .

Whi t e v. Vt . Mut . I ns. Co. , No. 2013- 569, 2014 WL 6533298, at *3

( N. H. Nov. 21, 2014) ( quot i ng Bat es, 943 A. 2d at 753) . I n t hi s

i nqui r y, we ar e not const r ai ned t o t he speci f i c t er ms of t he

pr ovi si on i nvol ved; we must r ead t he pol i cy "as a whol e. " See

Gr eat Am. Di ni ng, I nc. v. Phi l a. I ndem. I ns. Co. , 62 A. 3d 843, 848

( N. H. 2013) .

To go beyond t he f our cor ners of t he pol i cy, however ,

gener al l y r equi r es ambi gui t y. See Whi t e, 2014 WL 6533298, at *3;

Bi r ch Br oad. , 13 A. 3d at 228; Lawyer s Ti t l e I ns. Cor p. v. Gr of f ,

808 A. 2d 44, 48 ( N. H. 2002) . Cl ear and unambi guous pol i cy l anguage

i s gener al l y t he best evi dence of t he par t i es' i nt ent , and cour t s

do not l i ght l y di sr egar d i t . See Whi t e, 2014 WL 6533298, at *3.

When f aced wi t h an i nt er nal l y i nconsi st ent pol i cy, t he

New Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t has l ooked t o "obj ect i ve ext r i nsi c

evi dence, " such as ot her agr eement s bet ween r el evant part i es, t o

"concl usi vel y r esol ve[ ] " t he i nt ent of t he cont r act i ng par t i es.

See Tech- Bui l t , 898 A. 2d at 1010. I n Tech- Bui l t , t he New Hampshi r e

Supreme Cour t consi der ed a cont r act bet ween Surge, an empl oyee

l easi ng company, and i t s i nsur er , Vi r gi ni a Sur et y. I d. at 1008- 09.

At i ssue was whet her Sur ge' s Vi r gi ni a Sur et y pol i cy extended

-11-


12/38

coverage to Sur ge empl oyees who were l eased t o Tech- Bui l t , a

cor por at i on i nvol ved i n t he const r uct i on i ndust r y, or t o Tech- Bui l t

i t sel f . I d. at 1009. I n t he secti on t i t l ed, "Who I s I nsur ed, " t he

pol i cy st at ed: "You are i nsured i f you are an empl oyer named i n

I t em 1 of t he I nf or mat i on Page. " I d. The cour t "acknowl edge[ d]

t hat I t em1 of t he i nf or mat i on page i t sel f r ef er ence[ d] Sur ge ' et al

[ si c] ' and t he ' [ o] t her wor kpl aces' subsect i on r ef er ence[ d] t he

endor sement ent i t l ed ' Addi t i onal Named I nsur ed and/ or Locat i ons. ' "

I d. ( t hi r d and f our t h al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) . The endor sement i n

t ur n l i st ed over 150 compani es, i ncl udi ng Tech- Bui l t . I d. The

cour t not ed, however , t hat " [ o] t her l anguage wi t hi n t he pol i cy

i t sel f . . . r eveal [ ed] t hat t he cont r act i ng par t i es ant i ci pat ed

t hat a si ngl e empl oyer was named as t he i nsured, namel y Surge, and

t hat cover age f or t hat empl oyer extended t o al l ' wor kpl aces' of

t hat empl oyer l i st ed i n t he endor sement . . . . " I d. at 1009- 10.

I n exami ni ng t he ent i r e pol i cy, t he cour t f ound a l ack of cl ar i t y

as t o what t he par t i es i nt ended. See i d.

The New Hampshi r e Supreme Cour t used Sur ge' s l easi ng

agr eement wi t h Tech- Bui l t t o " i nf or m[ ] " i t s under st andi ng of t he

Vi r gi ni a Sur et y Pol i cy. I d. at 1011. The cour t concl uded t hat

Sur ge' s l easi ng agr eement wi t h Tech- Bui l t "memor i al i zed" Sur ge' s

"cl ear i nt ent . . . t o secur e wor ker s' compensat i on cover age onl y

f or i t s l eased empl oyees. " I d. at 1010. The cour t r ecogni zed

t hat , " i n gener al , we do not l ook beyond t he f our cor ner s of t he

-12-


13/38

i nsur ance cont r act t o di scer n t he i nt ent of t he cont r act i ng par t i es

r egar di ng t he scope and extent of i nsur ance cover age. " I d. But ,

t he cour t expl ai ned, "we wi l l not i gnor e t hat [ obj ect i ve ext r i nsi c]

evi dence i n f avor of dogmat i c adher ence t o i nsurance maxi ms. " I d.

I n t hi s case, t he St r at f or d Pol i cy pr ovi des pr i mar y

i nsur ance cover age t o t hr ee cat egor i es of "aut os, " i ncl udi ng, as i s

r el evant her e, "hi r ed ' aut os. ' " "Hi r ed ' aut os' " ar e def i ned as

"t hose ' aut os' [ DAM] l ease[ s] , hi r e[ s] , r ent [ s] or bor r ow[ s] . " The

St r at f or d Pol i cy st at es t hat "[ t ] hi s Cover age For m' s Li abi l i t y

Cover age i s pr i mar y f or any cover ed ' aut o' whi l e hi r ed or bor r owed

by [ DAM] and used excl usi vel y i n [DAM' s] busi ness as a

' t r ucker ' . . . . "

To r epeat , DAM l eased or r ent ed t wo t ypes of vehi cl es i n

t he cour se of i t s busi ness. Fi r st , DAM r ent ed smal l vans, si mi l ar

t o those i t owned, f or appr oxi mat el y $5, 000 per year t o del i ver

smal l packages dur i ng busy per i ods. Second, DAM l eased l ar ge

t r act or s f r om Ryder f or appr oxi mat el y $240, 000 per year t o

t r anspor t pal l et i zed f r ei ght . Ther e i s no di sput e t hat t he par t i es

i nt ended t he St r at f or d Pol i cy t o pr ovi de pr i mar y cover age f or t he

smal l vans DAM owned and r ent ed. We must det ermi ne whet her t he

par t i es i nt ended t he pol i cy' s pr i mar y cover age t o al so ext end t o

t he l ar ge t r act or s l eased f r om Ryder .

I f we wer e t o conf i ne our consi der at i on t o onl y t he

def i ni t i on of "hi r ed ' aut os, ' " pr i mar y cover age woul d appl y t o t he

-13-


14/38

l arge t r actors i n t he same way as t he smal l vans. 2 Si nce DAM

l eased t he l ar ge t r act or s f r om Ryder , t hey woul d qual i f y as " hi r ed

' aut os, ' " f or whi ch cover age woul d be pr i mar y. I ndeed, St r at f or d' s

Seni or Li t i gat i on Speci al i st , Sandr a McFar l ane, conceded t hat t he

def i ni t i on of "hi r ed ' aut os' " woul d i ncl ude t he Ryder t r act or , but

mai nt ai ned t hat t hi s was not t he par t i es' i nt ent . She expl ai ned,

" I t hi nk t he pr obl em was t hat t her e was an exposur e out t her e t hat

wasn' t i nt ended t o be cover ed by t he pol i cy. "

The di st r i ct cour t not ed t hat , " r ead i n i sol at i on, t he

pol i cy' s cover age pr ovi si on and i t s def i ni t i on of ' hi r ed aut o'

woul d appear t o pr ovi de pr i mary cover age f or t he t r actor t hat

Gi r gi nof f was dr i vi ng. " Ol d Republ i c, 2014 WL 309390, at *5. But ,

t he di st r i ct cour t f ound, "[ t ] he r est of t he pol i cy r eveal s" a

cont r ar y i nt ent . I d. We agr ee.

I t i s a car di nal pr i nci pl e of cont r act i nt er pr et at i on

t hat we must r ead t he pol i cy "as a whol e. " See Gr eat Am. Di ni ng,

62 A. 3d at 848. For t hi s r eason, our anal ysi s cannot begi n and end

wi t h t he def i ni t i on of "hi r ed ' aut os. ' " Her e, ot her pr ovi si ons

2 We need not dwel l on St r at f or d' s ar gument t hat t he t r ai l erwoul d not be cover ed even i f t he t r act or was. "Speci f i cal l ydescr i bed ' aut os' " are def i ned as "t hose ' aut os' descr i bed i n I t emThree of t he Decl ar at i ons f or whi ch a premi umchar ge i s shown ( and

f or Li abi l i t y Cover age any ' t r ai l er s' you don' t own whi l e at t achedt o any power uni t descr i bed i n I t em Thr ee) . " The def i ni t i on of"aut o" i ncl udes t r ai l er s. I t em Thr ee i ncl udes "any non- ownedt r ai l er whi l e at t ached t o a cover ed aut o, " wi t h a l i abi l i t y pr emi umof $254. The t r ai l er i s t her ef or e an "' aut o' descri bed i n I t emThree of t he Decl ar at i ons f or whi ch a premi um char ge i s shown" sol ong as t he t r act or t o whi ch i t i s at t ached i s a cover ed aut o.

-14-


15/38

wi t hi n t he pol i cy i t sel f r eveal a mor e t ai l or ed i nt ent t o i nsur e

onl y t he smal l er si de of DAM' s busi ness, whi ch conduct ed smal l

package del i ver y i n smal l vans and t r ucks. Hi ghl i ght i ng t hi s si de

of DAM' s busi ness, t he St r at f or d Pol i cy descr i bes DAM' s busi ness as

t he del i ver y of of f i ce suppl i es and smal l househol d appl i ances.

Ther e i s no ment i on i n t he pol i cy of t he addi t i onal por t i on of t he

busi ness concer ned wi t h t he t r anspor t at i on of pal l et i zed f r ei ght .

DAM l i st ed t wo of i t s smal l vans i n t he i t emi zat i on of

"speci f i cal l y descr i bed ' aut os, ' " and pr ovi ded an est i mat e f or t he

cost of "hi r ed ' aut os' " t hat i s consi st ent wi t h si mi l ar smal l vans.

DAM di d not descr i be t he por t i on of t he busi ness concer ni ng

pal l et i zed f r ei ght i nvol vi ng Ryder t r act or s.

We f i nd t he est i mat ed cost of hi r e f or "hi r ed ' aut os, ' "

l i sted i n t he St r at f or d Pol i cy, t o be par t i cul ar l y i nstr uct i ve as

t o t he par t i es' i nt ent . The est i mat ed cost of hi r e i s a t er m

wi t hi n t he f our corner s of t he pol i cy and cannot be i gnor ed. For

"hi r ed ' aut os, ' " DAM est i mat ed t he year l y cost of hi r e t o be

$5, 000. The par t i es agr ee t hat t he cost of hi r e f or smal l vans

si mi l ar t o those DAM owned was $5, 000 per year , and t hat t he cost

of hi r e f or t he Ryder t r act or s was appr oxi mat el y $240, 000 per year .

The $5, 000 est i mat e i s not bi ndi ng on t he par t i es, but i t i s

i nf or mat i ve of t hei r i nt ent when t he pol i cy was creat ed. Al t hough

t he concur r ence posi t s t hat an i nsur ed mi ght l owbal l hi s est i mat e

t o reduce hi s pr emi um, t he dr amat i c $235, 000 di f f erence between t he

-15-


16/38

est i mat e l i st ed i n t he cont r act and t he year l y cost t o hi r e t he

Ryder t r act or s i n t hi s case bel i es any suggest i on t hat St r at f or d

and DAM i nt ended t hei r pol i cy to pr ovi de pr i mar y cover age f or t hose

tractors. 3 Thi s i ncr edi bl y l ow amount evi dences t hat DAM at t empt ed

t o i nsur e i t s own vans as "speci f i cal l y descr i bed ' aut os' " and

si mi l ar hi r ed vans as "hi r ed ' aut os, ' " and not t he Ryder t r act or s.

Fur t her , cont r act i nt er pr et at i on r ul es r equi r e consi der at i on of t he

cost est i mat e wi t hi n t he f our cor ner s of t he pol i cy as i ndi cat i ve

of t he i nt ent as t o what was bei ng cover ed.

As i n Tech- Bui l t , DAM' s l ease agr eement wi t h Ryder

pr ovi des obj ect i ve ext r i nsi c evi dence of t he i nt ent ani mat i ng t he

St r at f or d Pol i cy as t o t he scope of cover age. Ther e, t he New

Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t used an ext r i nsi c l ease agreement as a

means t o obt ai n cl ar i t y as t o whomcover age appl i ed. See 898 A. 2d

at 1010. Tech- Bui l t made i t cl ear t hat i nconsi st ent pol i cy

l anguage must be vi ewed i n t erms of t he background, ci r cumst ances,

and cont ext i n whi ch t he pol i cy was negot i at ed. See i d. Her e, we

use a si mi l ar ext r i nsi c l ease agr eement t o obt ai n cl ar i t y as t o

3 I n addi t i on, t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat DAM "l owbal l ed"i t s est i mat e i n t he hopes of r educi ng i t s pr emi um f or an i nt endedcover age. As noted at oral argument , " [ t ] her e has been nosuggest i on what soever t hat DAM mi sr epr esent ed i t s cost of hi r e.

The quest i on r at her was whether , when DAM r epresent ed i t s cost ofhi r e, i t was r ef er r i ng t o t he vans, whi ch i s what t hey say t heywer e r ef er r i ng t o, or whet her t hey wer e r ef er r i ng t o somet hi ngel se. " I ndeed, when St r at f or d subsequent l y l ear ned of t he Rydert r act or s, i t chose not t o r et r oact i vel y i ncr ease t he pr emi um, butt o si mpl y i ncl ude t he t r act or s i n t he negot i at i ons f or r enewalgoi ng f orward.

-16-


17/38

whi ch vehi cl es cover age appl i ed gi ven t he pot ent i al i nconsi st ency

wi t hi n t he St r at f or d Pol i cy. DAM and Ryder ' s l ease agr eement

speci f i ed t hat Ryder was t he "par t y r esponsi bl e f or l i abi l i t y

i nsur ance" f or t he t r act or s. DAM agr eed t hat "Ryder shal l have t he

sol e r i ght t o conduct acci dent i nvest i gat i ons and admi ni st er cl ai ms

handl i ng and set t l ement s and [ DAM] shal l adher e t o and accept

Ryder ' s concl usi ons and deci si ons. "

The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat t hi s agreement bet ween DAM

and Ryder was "ent i r el y consi st ent " wi t h t he por t i ons of t he

St r at f or d Pol i cy t hat suggest t hat DAM i nt ended t o i nsur e onl y i t s

smal l vans t hr ough St r at f ord. See Ol d Republ i c, 2014 WL 309390, at

*5. "When pr ovi di ng i nf ormat i on on t he scope of t he cover age i t

needed f or hi r ed aut os, " t he di st r i ct cour t expl ai ned, "DAM knew

t hat Ryder was r esponsi bl e f or l i abi l i t y i nsur ance on t he t r act or s

i t l eased t o DAM, and DAM sai d nothi ng t o St r at f ord about t hose

t r act or s. " I d. at *6. "I n sum, i t cannot have been t he i nt ent of

t he par t i es f or St r at f or d t o pr ovi de pr i mar y cover age on a r i sk

t hat DAM never sought t o i nsur e and t hat . . . St r at f or d knew

not hi ng about when i t i ssued DAM i t s pol i cy and set t he pr emi umf or

i t . " I d.

Consi der i ng t he ent i r et y of t he St r at f or d Pol i cy,

i ncl udi ng t he pr i ci ng est i mat e, backgr ound, and ci r cumst ances, as

i nf or med by the l ease agr eement bet ween DAM and Ryder , we agr ee

wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he St r at f or d Pol i cy was never

-17-


18/38

i nt ended t o pr ovi de pr i mar y i nsur ance f or t he Ryder t r act or s.

Nei t her Ol d Republ i c nor t he concur r ence suggest s t hat t he pol i cy

or t he ext r i nsi c evi dence suppor t s t he pr oposi t i on t hat t he par t i es

di d i nt end t o pr ovi de pr i mar y cover age f or t he t r act or s; r at her ,

t hey ar gue t hat t he par t i es shoul d be r est r i ct ed t o the one

pr ovi si on i n t he pol i cy def i ni ng "hi r ed ' aut os' " despi t e any

evi dence of a cont r ar y i nt ent . The di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed no

l egal er r or i n i t s anal ysi s of t he St r at f or d Pol i cy and DAM' s l ease

wi t h Ryder . Even vi ewi ng t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o

Ol d Republ i c, t he r ecor d demonst r at es t hat DAM and St r at f or d di d

not i nt end t he St r at f or d Pol i cy t o pr ovi de pr i mar y i nsur ance f or

t he Ryder t r act or s, whi ch Ryder was al r eady i nsur i ng thr ough Ol d

Republ i c as per i t s agr eement wi t h DAM. See Tech- Bui l t , 898 A. 2d

at 1010 ( f i ndi ng "no genui ne di sput e of mat er i al f act concer ni ng

t he cl ear i nt ent memor i al i zed i n t he l ease agr eement " ) . We r epeat

what t he unani mous cour t i n Tech- Bui l t st at ed: under New Hampshi r e

i nsur ance l aw, "wher e t he i nt ent of t he cont r act i ng par t i es can be

concl usi vel y resol ved by obj ect i ve ext r i nsi c evi dence, . . . we

wi l l not i gnor e t hat evi dence i n f avor of dogmat i c adher ence t o

i nsur ance maxi ms. " I d. So t oo, her e.

Because we concl ude t hat St r at f or d' s pol i cy wi t h DAM

never pr ovi ded co- pr i mary cover age f or t he Ryder t r actor , we,

unl i ke t he concurr ence, need not consi der whether New Hampshi r e l aw

woul d concl ude that St r at f or d and DAM' s l at er post - l oss Gener al

-18-


19/38

Change Endorsement i s a val i d cont r act modi f i cat i on, whi ch Ol d

Republ i c di sput es. We do not e t hat St r at f ord has now commi t t ed

i t sel f t o pr ovi de excess cover age as t o t he Ryder t r act or bot h i n

i t s endor sement and i ndependent l y i n i t s r epr esent at i ons t o t he

di str i ct cour t and t hi s cour t .

I V. St r at f or d' s Dut y t o Def end

The di st r i ct cour t st at ed t hat , i n New Hampshi r e, " ' t he

dut y of an i nsur er t o def end i s t he same whet her i t s pot ent i al

l i abi l i t y i s ei t her as a pr i mar y or as an excess car r i er . ' " Ol d

Republ i c, 2014 WL 309390, at *7 ( quot i ng Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s

I ns. Co. v. Al l st at e I ns. Co. , 592 A. 2d 515, 517 ( N. H. 1991) ) .

" [ B] ecause St r at f or d concedes t hat i t s pol i cy pr ovi des excess

cover age, " t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded, "i t i s obl i gat ed t o shar e

equal l y i n t he cost s of def endi ng i t s i nsur eds i n t he under l yi ng

act i on. " I d. St r at f or d appeal s and ar gues t hat , as an excess

i nsur er , i t s dut y t o def end shoul d be excess t o t hat of t he pr i mar y

i nsur er .

I n 2011, t he New Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t not ed t hat i t

"ha[ s] never addr essed t he pr eci se i ssue of al l ocat i on of def ense

cost s bet ween a pr i mary i nsurer and an excess i nsurer . "

Pr ogr essi ve N. I ns. Co. v. Ar gonaut I ns. Co. , 20 A. 3d 977, 983

( N. H. 2011) . I n t hat case, t he cour t decl i ned t o r evi ew a t r i al

cour t ' s r equi r ement t hat an excess i nsur er pay i t s pr o r at a shar e

of def ense cost s si nce t he i ssue was not pr oper l y rai sed i n t he

-19-


20/38

not i ce of appeal . I d. at 980, 983. The cour t was al so unwi l l i ng

t o hol d t hat t he t r i al cour t had commi t t ed pl ai n er r or gi ven t he

unset t l ed nat ur e of t he i ssue. I d. at 983.

A previ ous New Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t deci si on,

Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s, had t ouched on t he same i ssue br i ef l y. I n

Uni ver sal Underwr i t ers, t he New Hampshi r e Supreme Cour t anal yzed

t he cover age pr ovi ded by t wo i nsur ance compani es, Uni ver sal and

Al l st at e, f or a l eased vehi cl e when bot h pur por t ed t o be excess

car r i er s. Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s, 592 A. 2d at 516. The cour t hel d

t hat Uni ver sal pr ovi ded pr i mary cover age up to $25, 000, and that

bot h Uni ver sal and Al l st at e pr ovi ded co- pr i mar y cover age past t hat

amount . I d. at 517. On t he dut y t o i ndemni f y, t he cour t hel d t hat

" t he cost of set t l ement i n t hi s case i n excess of $25, 000 i s t o be

shar ed pr o r at a by Uni ver sal and Al l st at e. " I d. On t he dut y t o

def end, however , t he cour t spl i t t he t ot al def ense cost s equal l y

bet ween t he t wo car r i er s. I d. at 517- 18. Rej ect i ng t he t r i al

cour t ' s pro rata di vi si on, t he New Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t st ated

t hat " t he dut y of an i nsur er t o def end i s t he same whet her i t s

pot ent i al l i abi l i t y i s ei t her as a pr i mar y or as an excess

carr i er . " I d. at 517.

The di st r i ct cour t i nt er pret ed Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s t o

r equi r e pr i mar y and excess car r i er s t o equal l y shar e t he cost s of

def ense. See Ol d Republ i c, 2014 WL 309390, at *7. The maj or i t y

r ul e i s t hat "t he excess l i abi l i t y car r i er i s not obl i gat ed t o

-20-


21/38

par t i ci pat e i n t he def ense unt i l t he pr i mar y pol i cy l i mi t s ar e

exhaust ed. " 14 Couch on I nsur ance 200: 41 ( 3d ed. 2014) ; see al so

i d. 200: 38; Schnei der Nat ' l Tr ansp. v. For d Mot or Co. , 280 F. 3d

532, 538 ( 5t h Ci r . 2002) . The di st r i ct cour t ' s cont r ar y concl usi on

f ol l ows f r om t he st at ement of t he New Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t i n

Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s, and t he cour t ' s hol di ng t hat t he t wo

i nsur er s must spl i t t he def ense cost s equal l y despi t e t he f act t hat

onl y Uni ver sal pr ovi ded pr i mar y cover age f or t he f i r st $25, 000.

See Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s, 592 A. 2d at 517- 18.

St r at f or d never t hel ess argues t hat Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s

cannot be t aken at i t s wor d. St r at f or d st r esses t hat i t i s not

aski ng t hi s court t o "over r ul e" t he New Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t on

an i ssue of New Hampshi r e st at e l aw. I nst ead, St r at f or d cl ai ms

t hat "[ i ] t i s . . . not at al l cl ear t hat t he Supr eme Cour t of New

Hampshi r e actual l y hel d t hat excess i nsurers must shar e def ense

cost s equal l y wi t h pr i mar y i nsur er s" gi ven t he cont ext wi t hi n whi ch

Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s was deci ded and t he ci t at i ons on whi ch i t

r el i es.

Fi r st , St r at f ord ar gues t hat t he New Hampshi r e Supr eme

Cour t woul d have expl ai ned i t s dr amat i c shi f t away f r omt he gener al

rul e i f t hi s was act ual l y i t s i nt ent . Cr i t i cal l y, a f ederal

di st r i ct cour t deci si on i nt er pr et i ng New Hampshi r e l aw t wo year s

bef or e Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s appear s t o f ol l ow t he gener al r ul e.

See Town of St oddard v. N. Sec. I ns. Co. , 718 F. Supp. 1062, 1065-

-21-


22/38

66 ( D. N. H. 1989) ( Devi ne, C. J . ) . I n t hat case, t he di st r i ct cour t

di f f er ent i at ed bet ween t he pr i mar y and excess i nsur er , and hel d

t hat t he pr i mar y i nsur er al one was obl i gat ed t o rei mbur se t he

i nsur ed f or t he cost s of t he def ense. See i d. at 1066. St r at f or d

concedes t hat "[ i ] t i s cer t ai nl y possi bl e . . . t hat Uni ver sal

Underwr i t ers r ef l ect s t he announcement by t he Supreme Cour t of New

Hampshi r e of a new posi t i on on t he i ssue and a repudi at i on of t he

appr oach r ef l ect ed i n Town of St oddar d. " But , " [ t ] her e i s no

i ndi cat i on . . . i n Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s i t sel f t hat t he cour t

was i nt r oduci ng a new r ul e of l aw . . . . "

Second, St r at f ord ar gues t hat t he t wo cases ci t ed by the

New Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t i n Uni ver sal Underwr i t ers do not

suppor t r eadi ng t he deci si on as adopt i ng a new r ul e. I n Uni ver sal

Under wr i t er s, t he cour t ci t ed a deci si on f r omt he Geor gi a Cour t of

Appeal s, Zur i ch I nsurance Co. v. New Amst er dam Casual t y Co. , 160

S. E. 2d 603, 605 ( Ga. Ct . App. 1968) ; an ear l i er deci si on f r om t he

New Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t , Li ber t y Mutual I nsurance Co. v. Home

I nsur ance I ndemni t y Co. , 351 A. 2d 891, 895 ( N. H. 1976) ; and a

t r eat i se, 14 Couch on I nsurance 51: 148 ( 2d ed. 1982) . See 592

A. 2d at 517.

I n Zur i ch I nsur ance, t he Geor gi a Cour t of Appeal s st at ed

t hat one i nsur er , Zur i ch, "had a pot ent i al l i abi l i t y, ei t her as

pr i mar y or excess car r i er , i n ei t her of whi ch cases i t s dut y t o

-22-


23/38

def end was the same. " 160 S. E. 2d at 605. 4 Zur i ch had def ended t he

i nsur ed and pai d t he j udgment when t he ot her car r i er r ef used. I d.

at 604. Ul t i mat el y vi ndi cat ed as t he excess car r i er , t he Geor gi a

Cour t of Appeal s hel d t hat Zur i ch had a dut y to def end i t s i nsur ed

even t hough i t was excess when t he pr i mary r ef used, but t hat i t had

a r i ght t o recover f r om t he pr i mar y i nsurer " i n t he same manner

t hat i t s i nsur ed woul d have had. " I d. at 606. A l at er case i n

Geor gi a ci t es Zur i ch I nsur ance f or t he uncont r over si al posi t i on

t hat an excess i nsur er "ha[ s] a dut y t o def end t he cl ai ms agai nst

i t s i nsur ed af t er t he pr i mar y i nsur er deni ed cover age and r ef used

t o def end. " Mot or s I ns. Co. v. Aut o- Owner s I ns. Co. , 555 S. E. 2d

37, 39 ( Ga. Ct . App. 2001) .

I n Li ber t y Mutual , t he New Hampshi r e Supreme Cour t hel d

t hat t wo i nsur er s provi ded pr i mar y cover age f or an acci dent t o

var yi ng l i mi t s. 351 A. 2d at 895. On a mot i on f or rehear i ng, t he

cour t cl ar i f i ed: "As bot h pol i ci es af f or d pr i mar y cover age, Li ber t y

Mut ual and Home I nsurance have a j oi nt obl i gat i on t o def end [ t he

i nsur ed] and t o shar e equal l y t he cost s of def ense. " I d. The case

has no bear i ng on t he r espect i ve dut i es t o def end when one i nsur er

i s pr i mary and t he other excess.

4 Ot her Geor gi a cases t hat hel d t hat , "whet her an i nsur er i s' a pr i mar y or excess car r i er , i t s obl i gat i on t o def end i s t he sameunder t he cont r act , ' " ar e l i mi t ed t o "cases i nvol v[ i ng] pol i ci eswi t h excess cl auses or cover age and def ense agr eement s whi ch ar enot expr essl y made excess. " Cont ' l Cas. Co. v. Synal l oy Cor p. , 667F. Supp. 1523, 1540 n. 9 ( S. D. Ga. 1983) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

-23-


24/38

The di st r i ct cour t ' s r eadi ng of t he st at ement i n

Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s draws t he most suppor t f r om t he second

edi t i on of Couch' s t r eat i se, publ i shed i n 1982. The ci t ed

pr ovi si on of t he t r eat i se expl ai ned:

The dut y t o def end i s absol ut e, even i f t hepol i cy t ur ns out t o be excess i nsur ance. Forexampl e, wher e a t r uck dr i ver ' s car i nsur erand t r uck owner ' s i nsurer both cover ed t heacci dent and each pol i cy cont ai ned t he def ensepr ovi si on, each had the dut y t o def end thedr i ver agai nst [ t he] i nj ur ed par t y' s cl ai m,even i f t he car i nsur er ' s cover age was excess.

14 Couch on I nsurance 51: 148 ( 2d ed. 1982) ( col l ect i ng cases,

i ncl udi ng Zur i ch I nsur ance) . I n Hawai i , f or exampl e, " [ when] bot h

pr i mar y and excess i nsur er [ s] shar ed a dut y t o def end the act i on,

each i nsur er was r esponsi bl e f or hal f of t he cost s and expenses of

def endi ng r egar dl ess of t he pr o r at a di vi si on of pr i nci pal

l i abi l i t y. " I d. ( ci t i ng I ndus. I ndem. Co. v. Aet na Cas. & Sur .

Co. , 465 F. 2d 934 ( 9t h Ci r . 1972) ) . El sewher e i n t he t r eat i se,

however , t he gener al r ul e i s st at ed as f ol l ows: " [ w] her e t he

i nsur ed mai nt ai ns bot h pr i mar y and excess pol i ci es, . . . an excess

l i abi l i t y i nsur er i s not obl i gat ed t o par t i ci pat e i n t he def ense

unt i l t he pr i mar y pol i cy l i mi t s ar e exhaust ed. " I d. 51: 36.

The moder n ver si on of Couch' s t r eat i se on i nsur ance l aw

r eaf f i r ms t hat , "[ a] s a gener al r ul e, a t r ue- excess i nsur er i s not

obl i gat ed t o def end i t s i nsur ed unt i l al l pr i mar y i nsur ance i s

exhaust ed or t he pr i mar y i nsur er has t ender ed i t s pol i cy l i mi t s. "

14 Couch on I nsur ance 200: 38 (3d ed. 2014) . "However , " t he

-24-


25/38

t r eat i se cont i nues, "a mi nor i t y of j ur i sdi ct i ons have hel d an

excess car r i er ' s dut y t o def end may be t r i gger ed i f t her e i s a

possi bi l i t y t hat excess cover age may be r eached. " I d. The

t r eat i se ci t es Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat

"[ o] nce an excess car r i er ' s obl i gat i on t o def end ar i ses, t he dut y

t o def end i s t he same as t he dut y of a pr i mar y i nsur er . " I d. Thi s

r eadi ng of Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s i s pl ausi bl e i f we assume t hat

t he l ow t hr eshol d of $25, 000 t r i gger ed bot h car r i er s' dut y t o

def end and t he New Hampshi r e Supreme Cour t t hen r equi r ed t hem t o

spl i t def ense costs equal l y. I t i s st i l l uncl ear how t hi s r ul e, i f

New Hampshi r e has adopt ed t hi s mi nor i t y posi t i on, woul d appl y t o

t he f act s of our case when t he pr i mar y car r i er had a cover age l i mi t

of $1, 000, 000 and t he compl ai nt does not est i mat e t he damages

sought .

The New Hampshi r e Supreme Cour t has not provi ded cl ar i t y

on i t s hol di ng i n Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s r egar di ng an excess

i nsur er ' s dut y to def end si nce t hat opi ni on was i ssued. 5 When

5 The subsequent ci t at i ons to Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s by t heNew Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t have not f ocused on t hi s par t of t hehol di ng. See Peer l ess I ns. v. Vt . Mut . I ns. Co. , 849 A. 2d 100, 103( N. H. 2004) ( r equi r i ng t wo i nsur er s t o shar e def ense cost s equal l yaf t er f i ndi ng bot h excess provi si ons mut ual l y repugnant ) ;Pr ogr essi ve N. I ns. Co. v. Ent er . Rent - A- Car Co. of Bos. , I nc. , 821

A. 2d 991, 993- 94 ( N. H. 2003) ( charact er i zi ng t he deci si on as"i nt er pr et [ i ng] [ ] conf l i ct i ng pr ovi si ons i n t he par t i es' i nsur ancepol i ci es" ) ; Al l st at e I ns. Co. v. Ar mst r ong, 738 A. 2d 1280, 1282( N. H. 1999) ( quot i ng l anguage concer ni ng par t i es' at t empt s t o l i mi tt he cover age requi r ed by New Hampshi r e' s Fi nanci al Responsi bi l i t yLaw) ; Cal abr ar o v. Met r o. Pr op. & Cas. I ns. Co. , 702 A. 2d 310, 313( N. H. 1997) ( char act er i zi ng the deci si on as one whi ch "di scuss[ ed]

-25-


26/38

denyi ng St r at f or d' s mot i on t o al t er or amend i t s deci si on, t he

di st r i ct cour t st at ed t hat , "i f pr esent ed wi t h t he pr eci se f act s of

t hi s case, t he New Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t mi ght be i ncl i ned t o

r evi si t Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s, and r eassess t hat opi ni on' s

r el i ance upon Zur i ch I nsur ance . . . . " The di st r i ct cour t f el t

"obl i gat ed" t o st and by i t s pr i or r ul i ng "gi ven t he l aw as

cur r ent l y enunci at ed by t he New Hampshi r e Supreme Cour t . " On

appeal , St r at f or d i nvi t es cer t i f i cat i on t o t he New Hampshi r e

Supreme Cour t , whi ch Ol d Republ i c does not oppose.

We ar e per mi t t ed to cer t i f y quest i ons of l aw t o t he New

Hampshi r e Supreme Cour t when quest i ons of New Hampshi r e l aw ar e

det er mi nat i ve of t he case, and t her e i s no cont r ol l i ng pr ecedent

f r om t he New Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t . N. H. Sup. Ct . R. 34. I n

Progr essi ve, t he New Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t expl i ci t l y st ated t hat

i t had never addr essed t he i ssue t hat we now f i nd bef ore us and

t hat i t coul d not say t hat t he st at e l aw on t he i ssue i s set t l ed.

See 20 A. 3d at 983. We concl ude t hat cer t i f i cat i on i s the

appr opr i at e r out e i n t hi s case gi ven t he i mpor t ant , and unset t l ed,

quest i on of New Hampshi r e l aw.

We cer t i f y t he f ol l owi ng quest i ons t o t he New Hampshi r e

Supr eme Cour t :

t wo pol i ci es t hat cont ai ned conf l i ct i ng excess cover agepr ovi si ons") .

-26-


27/38

1) Under New Hampshi r e l aw, when i s an excessi nsur er ' s dut y t o def end t r i gger ed? Does NewHampshi r e f ol l ow t he gener al r ul e t hat t heexcess i nsur er ' s dut y to def end i s t r i gger edonl y when the pr i mar y i nsur er ' s cover age i sexhaust ed? I f not , what r ul e as t o al l ocat i on

of def ense cost s and t i mi ng of payment doesNew Hampshi r e f ol l ow?

V. Concl usi on

We concl ude t hat DAM and St r at f or d never i nt ended

St r at f or d t o pr ovi de co- pr i mar y cover age t o t he t r act or - t r ai l er

i nvol ved i n t he aut omobi l e acci dent . Thi s l eaves Ol d Republ i c as

t he pr i mar y i nsur er , and St r at f or d as the excess i nsur er . We

cer t i f y t o t he New Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t t he at t endant quest i on

of St r at f or d' s dut y t o def end under New Hampshi r e l aw i n l i ght of

Uni ver sal Under wr i t er s.

The cl er k of t hi s cour t i s i nst r uct ed t o t r ansmi t t o t he

New Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t , under t he of f i ci al seal of t hi s cour t ,

a copy of t he cer t i f i ed quest i ons and our opi ni on i n t hi s case,

al ong wi t h copi es of t he par t i es' br i ef s, appendi x, and

suppl ement al f i l i ngs under Rul e 28( j ) of t he Feder al Rul es of

Appel l at e Pr ocedur e. We r et ai n j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s appeal .

So order ed.

- Concurring Opinion Follows -

-27-


28/38

BARRON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and concurring

in the judgment. I f ul l y j oi n t he deci si on t o cer t i f y t he dut y- t o-

def end quest i on t o t he New Hampshi r e Supreme Cour t . I do not

agr ee, however , t hat t he St r at f or d pol i cy, as or i gi nal l y i ssued,

pr ovi ded no cover age f or t he Ryder t r act or . I n my vi ew, t he

or i gi nal pol i cy di d pr ovi de such cover age, but t he r et r oact i ve

endor sement t hen made such cover age excess i nst ead of pr i mary. And

t hus I end up wher e t he maj or i t y does, but by a di f f er ent r out e.

As t he maj or i t y not es, St r at f or d' s Seni or Li t i gat i on

Speci al i st , on r evi ewi ng t he l anguage of St r at f or d' s pol i cy,

concl uded "t her e was an exposur e out t her e t hat wasn' t i nt ended to

be cover ed by t he pol i cy. " Maj . Op. at 14. But St r at f or d' s

r esponse was not t o ar gue t he par t i es' i nt ent t r umped t he pol i cy' s

t ext nor t o suggest t he t ext was l ess t han cl ear . I nst ead,

St r at f ord r eached an agr eement wi t h i t s i nsured t o change t he

pol i cy' s t ext vi a a r et r oact i ve endor sement t hat expr essl y l i mi t ed

t hat ot her wi se concer ni ng exposur e.

Thus, i t i s not surpr i si ng t hat i n t he Di st r i ct Cour t ,

even St r at f or d - - f ol l owi ng i t s Seni or Li t i gat i on Speci al i st ' s l ead

- - di d not di sput e t hat t he or i gi nal pol i cy cover ed t he Ryder

t r act or . Of cour se, now t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t has bypassed t he

part i es' argument s about how best t o deal wi t h the exposur e and, of

i t s own accor d, r ul ed such exposur e never exi st ed, St r at f or d

-28-


29/38

agr ees. But I bel i eve St r at f or d had i t r i ght t he f i r st t i me. I t

di d pr ovi de such cover age, even i f i t di d so due t o poor dr af t i ng.

No mat t er , t hough. St r at f ord worked out a deal . That

deal l i mi t ed t he exposur e by maki ng cover age of t r act or s hi r ed f r om

Ryder excess r at her t han pr i mar y. And t hus, t he par t i es t o t he

St r at f or d pol i cy r eached a sensi bl e and pr act i cabl e r esul t . I

t hi nk we shoul d bl ess i t r at her t han r ead t he pol i cy i n a way t hat ,

I worr y, may suggest t o some t hat i nsureds shoul d have l ess

conf i dence i n t he t ext of t hei r pol i ci es t han I r ead pr ecedent t o

show t hey shoul d.

I.

The maj or i t y accepts, as i t must , t hat t he most di r ect l y

per t i nent por t i on of t he pol i cy - - t he def i ni t i on of "hi r ed ' aut o' "

- - i ndi sput abl y i ncl udes t he Ryder t r act or s. Maj . Op. at 13- 14.

That def i ni t i on i ncl udes any " l and mot or vehi cl e, ' t r ai l er , ' or

semi t r ai l er desi gned f or t r avel on publ i c r oads" t hat DAM

"l ease[ s] , hi r e[ s] , r ent [ s] , or bor r ow[ s]" f r omt hi r d par t i es. And

t he pol i cy t hen st at es t hat i t br oadl y cover s " al l sums an

' i nsur ed' l egal l y must pay as damages because of ' bodi l y i nj ur y' or

' pr oper t y damage' t o whi ch t hi s i nsur ance appl i es, caused by an

' acci dent ' and resul t i ng f r omt he owner shi p, mai nt enance or use of

a cover ed ' aut o' " - - i ncl udi ng, f or t hi s pol i cy, a "hi r ed ' aut o. ' "

The l anguage coul d not be cl ear er .

-29-


30/38

Nonet hel ess, I can under st and t he t empt at i on to l ook

beyond t he pol i cy' s pl ai n t ext . I t does seem, f r om what t he l aw

cal l s ext r i nsi c evi dence ( whi ch i s t o say, evi dence not f ound

wi t hi n t he l anguage of t he pol i cy i t sel f ) , t hat nei t her par t y

t hought , at t he t i me of dr af t i ng, about t he ki nd of t r act or at

i ssue i n t hi s case. St r at f or d appar ent l y di d not know about t hi s

par t of t he i nsur ed' s busi ness, and t he i nsur ed appar ent l y di d not

t hi nk St r at f or d was t he sour ce of cover age f or t hese t r act or s.

But t he maj or i t y acknowl edges - - as i t must - - t hat

ext r i nsi c evi dence becomes r el evant t o l i mi t exposur e onl y i f t he

t ext i s act ual l y ambi guous. Whi t e v. Vt . Mut . I ns. Co. , - - A. 3d - -

, 2014 WL 6533298, at *3 ( N. H. 2014) ( " [ A] bsent ambi gui t y, our

sear ch f or t he par t i es' i nt ent i s l i mi t ed t o t he wor ds of t he

pol i cy. " ( quot i ng Bat es v. Phoeni x Mut . Fi r e I ns. Co. , 943 A. 2d

750, 753 ( N. H. 2008) ) ) . And t hat r ul e r ef l ect s t he f act t hat whi l e

t he i nt ent of t he par t i es cont r ol s, t hat i nt ent i s f ound f i r st and

f or emost i n t he wor ds of t he pol i cy - - wor ds t hat , when cl ear , ar e

det er mi nat i ve. See i d. I do not r ead t he maj or i t y' s key case,

Tech- Bui l t , t o say ot herwi se. See Tech- Bui l t 153, I nc. v. Va. Sur .

Co. , 898 A. 2d 1007 ( N. H. 2006) . Ther e, t he cour t f i r st f ound t he

t ext of t he pol i cy at i ssue ambi guous and onl y t hen t ur ned t o

ext r i nsi c evi dence t o l i mi t t he r each of t he cover age. I d. at

1009- 10.

-30-


31/38

Nor does Tech- Bui l t , as I r ead i t , suppor t f i ndi ng

ambi gui t y her e. I n t hat case, Tech- Bui l t , a const r uct i on company,

was a cl i ent of an empl oyee l easi ng company cal l ed Sur ge. I d. at

1008. Tech- Bui l t cl ai med t he i nsur ance pol i cy t hat cover ed Sur ge

act ual l y al so cover ed Sur ge' s cl i ent s. I d. at 1009. Tech- Bui l t

based t hat sur pr i si ng cont ent i on on t he f ol l owi ng pol i cy l anguage:

Sur ge' s pol i cy l i st ed t he "i nsur ed" as Sur ge "et al [ si c]. " I d.

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) . The pol i cy t hen l i st ed bot h Sur ge' s

addr ess and i t s "ot her workpl aces, " whi ch Sur ge descr i bed by

l i st i ng t he var i ous compani es ( Tech- Bui l t i ncl uded among t hem) t o

whi ch i t had l eased empl oyees. I d. From t hi s t hi n t ext ual basi s

- - an " i nt er pl ay, " t he cour t char i t abl y cal l ed i t - - Tech- Bui l t

cl ai med Sur ge' s car r i er had pl ai nl y agr eed t o suppl y i nsur ance

cover age to 150 or so of Sur ge' s cl i ent s, i d. , a most i mpl ausi bl e

cl ai m. The New Hampshi r e Supreme Cour t had no t r oubl e r ej ect i ng

i t . I t si mpl y not ed t hat "[ o] t her l anguage" i n t he pol i cy woul d be

r ender ed "nonsensi cal " i f Tech- Bui l t ' s i nt er pr et at i on was r i ght .

I d. at 1009- 10.

That case i s t hus ver y f ar f r omt hi s one. The def i ni t i on

of "hi r ed ' aut o, ' " unl i ke t he def i ni t i on of "i nsur ed" i n Tech-

Bui l t , i s cryst al cl ear . And whi l e t he maj or i t y i s qui t e r i ght

t hat t he pol i cy t ext must be consi der ed as a whol e, gi vi ng t hi s

"hi r ed ' aut o' " l anguage i t s pl ai n meani ng does not make nonsense of

ot her par t s of t he pol i cy. I n f act, a pl ai n r eadi ng of "hi r ed

-31-


32/38

' aut os' " does not even l ead t o an "i nt er nal l y i nconsi st ent pol i cy. "

Maj . Op. at 11 ( ci t i ng Tech- Bui l t , 898 A. 2d at 1010) . A r evi ew of

t he t hr ee ot her aspect s of t he pol i cy t he maj or i t y r el i es on i n

f i ndi ng ambi gui t y r eveal s why.

Fi r st , t he maj or i t y not es t he pol i cy descr i bes DAM' s

busi ness as consi st i ng of t he del i ver y of of f i ce suppl i es and

appl i ances, and makes no r ef er ence t o any busi ness i nvol vi ng t he

t r anspor t of "pal l et i zed f r ei ght . " Maj . Op. at 15. I f t he

maj or i t y' s poi nt i s t hat t he descr i pt i on of DAM' s busi ness i s not

consi st ent wi t h a pol i cy t er mt hat pl ai nl y cover s l eased t r act or s,

I cannot agr ee. Af t er al l , such t r act or s coul d r eadi l y be used t o

del i ver of f i ce suppl i es and appl i ances.

Mor e f undament al l y, St r at f or d' s pol i cy does not cont ai n

expl i ci t l anguage t yi ng cover age t o t he descr i pt i on of DAM' s

busi ness. And t he gener al r ul e ( whi ch, so f ar as I can t el l , New

Hampshi r e does not r ej ect ) i s t hat "busi ness descr i pt i ons" do not

l i mi t cover age t o t he pr eci se t ype of busi ness descr i bed. See,

e. g. , Mount Ver non Fi r e I ns. Co. v. Bel i ze NY, I nc. , 277 F. 3d 232,

239 ( 2d Ci r . 2002) ( r ej ect i ng t he ar gument t hat a pol i cy' s

descr i pt i on of t he i nsur ed' s busi ness as "Car pent r y" served t o

l i mi t t he cover age "t o car pent r y oper at i ons, " because "[ t ] he Pol i cy

si mpl y f ai l s t o pr ovi de t hat t he cl assi f i cat i ons def i ne t he cover ed

r i sks") ; GRE I ns. Gr p. v. Met r o. Bos. Hous. P' shi p, 61 F. 3d 79, 82

( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( r ej ect i ng t he ar gument t hat a "busi ness

-32-


33/38

descr i pt i on" of "of f i ce" meant "onl y l i abi l i t y ar i s i ng f r om [ t he

i nsur ed] ' s of f i ce oper at i ons was cover ed" because whi l e the f act

t hat t he t ype of busi ness was " of f i ce" r at her t han "skat i ng r i nk"

was "obvi ousl y r el evant t o cover age, " t he descr i pt i on "d[ i d] not

show a cl ear under st andi ng t o r est r i ct cover age t o l i abi l i t y

ar i s i ng out of [ i nsur ed] ' s of f i ce onl y") .

That r ul e makes sense. An i nsur er may r equi r e t he

descr i pt i on t o i nf or m t he pr emi um t he i nsur er set s. But i f t he

i nsur er want s t o st r i ctl y l i mi t cover age t o acti vi t i es wi t hi n t hat

descri pt i on, i t shoul d expl i ci t l y say so. Mount Ver non Fi r e I ns. ,

277 F. 3d at 239; see al so, e. g. , Wi ckr amasekra v. Associ at ed I nt ' l

I ns. Co. , 890 So. 2d 569, 574 ( La. Ct . App. 2003) ( const r ui ng a

pol i cy wi t h an endor sement t hat expl i ci t l y r est r i ct ed cover age t o

t he t ype of busi ness shown on t he decl arat i on) ; Sun I ndem. Co. v.

Lovel l , 6 Conn. Supp. 337 ( Conn. C. P. 1938) ( same) .

Second, t he maj or i t y not es t he pol i cy cover s

"speci f i cal l y descr i bed ' aut os' " and t hat t he t wo "speci f i cal l y

descr i bed ' aut os' " l i st ed i n t he pol i cy ar e smal l er vans and not

Ryder t r act or s. Maj . Op. at 15. But t he pol i cy pr ovi ded cover age

f or t wo separ at e cat egor i es of "aut os": "hi r ed ' aut os' " t hat , by

t er ms, DAM does not own, and "speci f i cal l y descr i bed ' aut os' " t hat ,

by t erms, must be descr i bed on a separat e schedul e. That schedul e

i n t ur n r ef er s t o t he l i st ed vehi cl es as "cover ed aut os you own. "

The l eased Ryder t r act or s, t heref or e, wer e not l i st ed as

-33-


34/38

"speci f i cal l y descri bed ' aut os' " f or t he si mpl e r eason t hat DAM di d

not own t hem. As vehi cl es DAM onl y l eased, t hese t r actors woul d be

cover ed as "hi r ed ' aut os. ' " I f t he maj or i t y' s poi nt i s t hat an

obj ect i ve r eader woul d have to assume that t he rent ed vehi cl es

necessar i l y woul d be si mi l ar i n t ype t o t he owned vehi cl es

speci al l y l i st ed on t he schedul e, I do not see why. Compani es

mi ght r ent vehi cl es of a di f f er ent t ype pr eci sel y because t he ones

t hey own ar e not adequat e to ever y t ask.

Fi nal l y, t he maj or i t y not es t he pol i cy l i st s an

"est i mat ed cost of hi r e" f or al l hi r ed aut os at $5, 000 per year .

Maj . Op. at 15. That number i s smal l . I t does seem f i t f or a

modest busi ness usi ng vans r ather t han f or a l arge one usi ng

t r act or s. But t he t ext of t he pol i cy cont empl at es i nsur eds may

l owbal l t hei r est i mat es - - pr esumabl y t o r educe t hei r pr emi ums.

That i s why - - as t he maj or i t y acknowl edges, Maj . Op. at 15 - - t he

pol i cy expr essl y pr ovi des t hat est i mat es suppl i ed by t he i nsur ed on

t hi s por t i on of t he pol i cy ar e not bi ndi ng. I n f act, t he pol i cy

f ur t her pr ovi des t hat St r at f or d may audi t t he i nsur ed' s act ual

hi r ed- aut o expendi t ur es and r et r oact i vel y i ncr ease t he pr emi um

shoul d t he est i mate pr ove t oo l ow. I n other words, even t hough no

i nt ent i onal l owbal l i ng occur r ed her e, St r at f or d' s pol i cy made

cl ear t hat an i nsur ed' s l ow est i mat e i s not bi ndi ng i n t he

i nsur ed' s f avor . I t hus do not bel i eve we shoul d r el y on t he

-34-


35/38

est i mat e t o cr eat e an ambi gui t y i n what i s ot her wi se cl ear and

pl ai nl y bi ndi ng pol i cy l anguage - - t he "hi r ed ' aut o' " def i ni t i on.

For t hese reasons, I woul d hol d t he pol i cy l anguage i s

cl ear . That bei ng t he case, i t seems t o me t hat New Hampshi r e l aw

r equi r es us t o gi ve ef f ect t o t he pl ai n meani ng of t he "hi r ed

' aut os' " def i ni t i on. Whi t e, 2014 WL 6533298, at *3; Bat es, 943

A. 2d at 753. And t hus we may not l i mi t t he coverage by l ooki ng

about f or out si de evi dence of t he par t i es' under st andi ngs ( her e,

t he cont r act bet ween DAM and Ryder ) . But t hat does not mean

St r at f or d i s wi t hout r ecour se, as I wi l l now expl ai n.

II.

Faced wi t h an exposur e i t wi shed t o l i mi t , St r at f or d

r eached out t o DAM t o pr ovi de excess cover age, r ather t han pr i mary

cover age, f or t he l eased Ryder t r act or s. I woul d gi ve t he deal

St r at f or d and DAM st r uck f ul l ef f ect.

Tr ue, as Ol d Republ i c poi nt s out , a par t y' s af f i r mat i on

of a pr eexi st i ng dut y i s not gener al l y adequat e consi der at i on f or

a new cont r act . Mel ot t e v. Tucci , 66 N. E. 2d 357, 358 ( Mass. 1946) .

But r el i nqui shi ng a cont est abl e cl ai mi s. Pi t ki n v. Noyes, 48 N. H.

294, 304 ( 1869) ; see al so Mathewson Corp. v. Al l i ed Mar i ne I ndus. ,

I nc. , 827 F. 2d 850, 856 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ( Massachuset t s l aw) . I

concl ude St r at f or d' s pre- exi st i ng dut y t o pr ovi de cover age was

cl ear . But I do not bel i eve a cont r ar y cl ai m woul d be f r i vol ous.

And, of cour se, nei t her woul d t he maj or i t y. Thus, St r at f or d gave

-35-


36/38

up somet hi ng r eal . I t f or ecl osed i t s ri ght t o ar gue i t coul d deny

cover age al t oget her . See Chi shol m v. Ul t i ma Nashua I ndus. Cor p. ,

834 A. 2d 221, 225 ( N. H. 2003) ( "Consi der at i on i s pr esent i f t her e

i s ei t her a benef i t t o t he pr omi sor or a det r i ment t o t he

pr omi see. " ) ; see al so Pi t ki n, 48 N. H. at 304 ( " [ C] ompr omi se of

doubt f ul cl ai ms" i s consi der at i on unl ess t he cl ai ms ar e "ut t er l y

wi t hout f oundat i on and known t o be so") ; Mat hewson Corp. , 827 F. 2d

at 856 ( f i ndi ng consi der at i on i f t he sur r ender ed cl ai m i s not

"' vexat i ous or f r i vol ous' " ( quot i ng Bl ount v. Di l l away, 85 N. E.

477, 479 ( Mass. 1908) ) .

Ol d Republ i c al so argues t he endorsement pr ej udi ced Ol d

Republ i c wi t hout Ol d Republ i c' s consent . But no t er m i n t he

St r at f or d pol i cy pr ot ect ed Ol d Republ i c f r om such modi f i cat i on.

See Rest at ement ( Second) of Cont r act s 311( 2) ( absent a t er m i n

t he cont r act f or bi ddi ng modi f i cat i on of a dut y t o a t hi r d par t y

" t he pr omi sor and pr omi see r et ai n power t o di schar ge or modi f y t he

dut y by subsequent agr eement " ) ; see al so Br ooks v. Trs. of

Dart mout h Col l . , 20 A. 3d 890, 900 ( N. H. 2011) ( f ol l owi ng t he Second

Rest at ement ' s descri pt i on of t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar y rul es - -

t hough not ment i oni ng t hi s par t i cul ar one - - as a mat t er of New

Hampshi r e l aw) .

Nor does New Hampshi r e l aw make Ol d Republ i c a vest ed

t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar y ent i t l ed t o such pr ot ect i on i n t he absence

of such a pol i cy t er m. The or i gi nal St r at f or d pol i cy di d not

-36-


37/38

"sat i sf y some obl i gat i on owed by the pr omi see [ DAM] t o the t hi r d

par t y [ Ol d Republ i c] , " nor was t hat pol i cy "so expr essed as t o gi ve

t he pr omi sor [ St r at f or d] r eason t o know t hat a benef i t t o a t hi r d

par t y [ Ol d Republ i c] i s cont empl at ed by t he pr omi see [ DAM] as one

of t he mot i vat i ng causes of hi s maki ng t he cont r act . " Br ooks, 20

A. 3d at 900. I n f act , St r at f or d di d not have r eason t o know about

t he Ol d Republ i c pol i cy, much l ess t o know DAM cont empl ated Ol d

Republ i c woul d benef i t f r om t he St r at f or d pol i cy.

That l eaves onl y Ol d Republ i c' s ar gument t hat t he

endor sement vi ol at es a publ i c pol i cy agai nst "post - cl ai m

underwr i t i ng. " The out - of - New Hampshi r e cases on whi ch Ol d

Republ i c excl usi vel y r el i es ( f r om Loui si ana and Mi ssi ssi ppi ,

r espect i vel y) ar e r eadi l y di st i ngui shed. They i nvol ved r et r oact i ve

pol i cy al t er at i ons t hat l i mi t ed t he cover age f or an i nj ur ed par t y

( i n t wo i nst ances, f or an i nj ur ed par t y who was al so a par t y t o the

pol i cy) . See Mat t ox v. W. Fi d. I ns. Co. , 694 F. Supp. 210, 216

( N. D. Mi ss. 1988) ; Washi ngt on v. Savoi e, 634 So. 2d 1176, 1180 ( La.

1994) ; Lewi s v. Equi t y Nat ' l Li f e I ns. Co. , 637 So. 2d 183, 188- 89

( Mi ss. 1994) . And t hose al t er at i ons wer e made wi t hout t he i nsurer

f i r st obt ai ni ng t he i nj ur ed par t y' s consent . See Mat t ox, 694 F.

Supp. at 216; Washi ngt on, 634 So. 2d at 1180; Lewi s, 637 So. 2d at

188- 89.

Not hi ng l i ke t hat happened i n t hi s case. Her e, t he

i nsur ed consent ed t o t he change at t he t i me i t was made. And,

-37-


38/38

f ur t her , t he par t y i nj ur ed by the i nsur ed wi l l not suf f er any

r educt i on i n t otal cover age i n consequence of t he change. Thus,

t he onl y par t y "har med" by t hi s change i s an i nsur er , Ol d Republ i c,

who i s not a part y t o t he pol i cy changed and whose harm i s har d t o

di vi ne. Ol d Republ i c si mpl y must pr ovi de cover age i t t hought i t

was on t he hook f or al l al ong - - cover age Ol d Republ i c al so must

pr ovi de under t he maj or i t y' s appr oach.

III.

An i nsur ed shoul d be abl e to rel y on what t he pol i cy

says. New Hampshi r e agr ees. Li ke ot her st at es, i t pr ovi des t hat

even ambi guous pol i ci es " wi l l be const r ued agai nst t he i nsur er , "

Cat hol i c Med. Ct r . v. Exec. Ri sk I ndemn. , I nc. , 867 A. 2d 453, 456

( N. H. 2005) , at l east absent suf f i ci ent ext r i nsi c evi dence t o show

t he par t i es i nt ended ot her wi se. Al l t he mor e r eason, t her ef or e, t o

be war y of r esort i ng t o ext r i nsi c evi dence t oo easi l y and t hen

r el yi ng on i t t o def eat cover age f or t he i nsur ed. As t hi s case and

ot her s I r ef er t o show, t he non- bi ndi ng aspect s of a pol i cy may not

r ef l ect t he f ul l ext ent of t he cover age cont ai ned i n a pol i cy' s

bi ndi ng passages. But i t i s t hose bi ndi ng passages t hat shoul d

cont r ol when cl ear . And as I f i nd t hem cl ear her e, I al so f i nd

t hem cont r ol l i ng.

Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Stratford Insurance Company, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents

Transcript of Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Stratford Insurance Company, 1st Cir. (2015)