Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Ins. (Uk) Ltd.
Decision Date | 29 March 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 12-2350-SAC,12-2350-SAC |
Citation | 378 F.Supp.3d 975 |
Parties | BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ASPEN INSURANCE (UK) LTD., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Christopher P. Sobba, Roy Bash, Polsinelli PC, Kansas City, MO, David L. Beck, Pro Hac Vice, David T. Dekker, Pro Hac Vice, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Andrew C. Patton, Pro Hac Vice, Robert J. Franco, Pro Hac Vice, Scott O. Reed, Pro Hac Vice, Franco & Moroney, LLC, Chicago, IL, Michael T. Crabb, Michael J. Kuckelman, Kuckelman Torline Kirkland, Overland Park, KS, for Defendants.
Sam A. Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge This insurance dispute over coverage and amount of recovery comes before the court on a second wave of summary judgment motions following the Tenth Circuit's order (ECF# 329) vacating and remanding this court's prior summary judgment order and the United States Supreme Court's denial of the defendants' petition for certiorari (ECF# 349), Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Insurance (Uk) Ltd. , 882 F.3d 952 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S.Ct. 151, 202 L.Ed.2d 35 (2018). The plaintiff Black & Veatch Corporation ("B & V") has filed a motion for partial summary judgment (ECF# 337) and a motion to amend the pretrial order (ECF# 339). The defendants Aspen Insurance (UK) Ltd. and Lloyd's Syndicate 2003 (collectively "Aspen" or "Excess Insurers") have filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF# 340. The motions are fully briefed and ripe for decision. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the court will incorporate by reference from its prior order the summary judgment standards (ECF# 230, pp. 2-3) and general New York law governing interpretation of insurance contracts and the respective burdens of establishing coverage, exclusions and exceptions (ECF# 230, pp. 11-17).
The plaintiff B & V is suing the defendants who are first layer excess umbrella liability insurers under a manuscript commercial general liability ("CGL") policy for coverage of B & V's claimed liability for damages to seven Jet Bubble Reactors ("JBRs"). B & V contracted with American Electric Power ("AEP") "to engineer, procure and construct ["EPC"] wet flue gas desulfurization systems (JBRs) for eight installations." (ECF# 294, ¶ 1, PTO). 882 F.3d at 954.
B & V procured CGL policies to cover its JBR work. Zurich American Insurance Company ("Zurich") provided the primary layer of coverage having the following limits: $ 2,000,000 per occurrence and $ 4,000,000 for general and products-completed operations aggregate limits. Aspen provided the first layer of excess/umbrella liability coverage with per occurrence and aggregate limits of $ 25,000,000.
As for the property damage claim made against B & V, the Tenth Circuit summarizes it in these terms:
882 F.3d at 954. The parties also stipulate in the pretrial order to the following facts that are relevant to these motion proceedings:
As it did in the prior summary judgment order, the court sets out the general nature of the plaintiff's claims deferring to its characterization. The plaintiff is claiming coverage for property damage resulting directly from the work of the subcontractors on behalf of B & V and from B & V's failure to deliver professional services both of which resulted in the installation of defective risers. For the three completed and operating JBRs, Cardinal 1 and 2 and Conesville, B & V's claim is for the property damage resulting from alleged deficiencies with the installation and errors with the design and supervision of the risers that "resulted in excessive mineral deposits accumulating on the decks and other internal components of the JBRs, the weight of which in turn caused those components to deform, crack, and, in some cases, collapse entirely." ECF# 294, Pretrial Order, p. 7. Cardinal 1 and 2 JBRs were so badly damaged that the owners no longer considered them viable. Id. at p. 8. The owners demanded complete replacement of the badly damaged internal components. Id. Thus, B & V is making a coverage claim for its liability incurred to repair or replace the property damaged from the occurrence of the continual, ongoing and unforeseen buildup of deposits in the JBRs. ECF #297-3, Wood Dep. pp. 14-17. For the uncompleted JBRs, B & V's claim is for property damage to other non-defective internal components that resulted from work done to access, remove and replace the installed defective gas risers. Thus, B & V is making a coverage claim for its liability for the damage done to non-defective internal components from being removed based on the occurrence of the defective gas risers being installed and then needing to be torn out. Id. at 297-3, pp. 29-30; ECF# 297-8, Miller Dep. p. 157-158.
Aspen advances numerous arguments, and the court will follow the order used by Aspen in its original memorandum. At the outset, some of Aspen's arguments trigger deciding whether these matters were resolved by the Tenth Circuit on appeal and are subject to the law of the case doctrine or the mandate rule. The law of the case doctrine recognizes that, " ‘[w]hen a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.’ " Mason v. Texaco, Inc. , 948 F.2d 1546, 1553 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting Arizona v. California , 460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983) ), cert. denied , 504 U.S. 910, 112 S.Ct. 1941, 118 L.Ed.2d 547 (1992). "[W]hen a case is appealed and remanded, the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and ordinarily will be followed by both the trial court on remand and the appellate court in any subsequent appeal." Rohrbaugh v. Celotex Corp. , 53 F.3d 1181, 1183 (10th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The doctrine "applies to all issues previously decided, either explicitly or by necessary implication." Rohrbaugh , 53 F.3d at 1183 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "The law of the case doctrine is intended to prevent ‘continued re-argument of issues already decided,’ Gage v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 796 F.2d 345, 349 (10th Cir. 1986), and to preserve scarce court resources—to avoid ‘in short, Dickens's Jarndyce v. Jarndyce syndrome,’ McIlravy v. Kerr–McGee Coal Corp. , 204 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2000)." Huffman v. Saul Holdings Ltd. Partn. , 262 F.3d 1128, 1132 (10th Cir. 2001).
"An ‘important corollary’ to the law of the case doctrine, ‘known as the "mandate rule," provides that a district court must comply strictly with the mandate rendered by the reviewing court.’ " Id. (quoting Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah , 114 F.3d 1513, 1520–21 (10th Cir. 1997) ). Put another way, the law of the case doctrine United States v. Quintieri , 306 F.3d 1217, 1225 (2d Cir. 2002) (footnote omitted), cert. denied , 539 U.S. 902, 123 S.Ct. 2246, 156 L.Ed.2d 110 (2003). Thus, an issue decided on appeal may not be relitigated in the same case and "there must be compliance with the reviewing court's mandate." Grigsby v. Barnhart , 294 F.3d 1215, 1218 (10th Cir. 2002). In this circuit, "[t]he mandate consists of our instructions to the district court at the conclusion of the opinion, and the entire opinion that preceded those...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Heartland Builders, LLC
...Co. of Md. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. , 189 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1225 n.8 (D. Kan. 2002) ; see also Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Ins. (UK) Ltd. , 378 F. Supp. 3d 975, 999 (D. Kan. 2019) (noting that the "impaired property" exclusion "would have no application where the damage, including the lo......
-
Phillips v. Boilermaker-Blacksmith Nat'l Pension Tr.
... ... Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); ... Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, ... 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) ... Hodges v ... Life Ins. Co. N. Am. , 920 F.3d 669, 675 (10th Cir. 2019) ... 2020); Black & Veatch ... Corp. v. Aspen Ins. (Uk) Ltd ... ...
-
Adkins v. SLM Corp.
... ... considered for that reason. Black" & Veatch ... Corporation v ... \xC2" Aspen ... Insurance (UK) Ltd. , 378 F.Supp.3d ... ...
-
Harris v. City Cycle Sales, Inc.
... ... dismiss.” GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale ... Grocers, Inc ... Id .; s ee also Tri-State Truck Ins., Ltd. v ... First Nat'l Bank of Wamego , ... [ 18 ] Black & Veatch Corp. v ... Aspen Ins. (Uk) Ltd ... ...