Century Indem. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., CA 09-285 S.
Citation | 708 F.Supp.2d 202 |
Decision Date | 27 April 2010 |
Docket Number | No. CA 09-285 S.,CA 09-285 S. |
Parties | CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff,v.LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
James T. McCormick, Esq., McKenna & McCormick, Providence, RI, John L. Altieri, Jr., Esq., Boutin & Altieri PLLC, Fairfield, CT, Lawrence A. Nathanson, Esq., Siegal Napierkowski & Park, Mt. Laurel, NJ, for Plaintiffs.
Ralph T. Lepore, III, Esq., Benjamin M. McGovern, Esq., Michael T. Maroney, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, Boston, MA, Christopher J. McCarty, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, Providence, RI, for Defendant.
In an earlier dispute between Emhart Industries, Inc. (“Emhart”) and its insurers arising out of a superfund cleanup, Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) settled with Emhart. Plaintiff Century Indemnity Company (“Century”), another party to the dispute, went to trial against Emhart instead. Century prevailed on the merits, but was held responsible for a judgment of $6 million, because this Court found it was required to pay for Emhart's legal defense in connection with the cleanup. Now, notwithstanding Liberty Mutual's settlement with Emhart, Century seeks contribution from Liberty Mutual for a major portion of the judgment, on the theory that it too bore the obligation to provide a defense. The doctrine of equitable contribution, Century asserts, requires Liberty Mutual to pay its fair share.
The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment on these issues. After hearing oral argument on February 2, 2010, and considering the issues carefully, the Court concludes that Liberty Mutual did have a duty to defend Emhart, for the reasons fully explained below. Nevertheless, the Court believes that Liberty Mutual must be allowed to conduct the discovery it has requested on the issue of equitable contribution.
I. BackgroundA. The EPA Action
This dispute arises out of an enforcement action initiated by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA” or “Superfund”). In 1998, the EPA detected hazardous chemicals at the Centredale Manor Superfund Site (the “Site”) in North Providence, Rhode Island. ( See Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts, Dec. 1, 2009 (“Def.'s Facts”) ¶ 22.) Between 2000 and 2003, the agency issued several Administrative Orders to Emhart identifying it as a “potentially responsible party” for cleanup costs under CERCLA. The orders charged that the operations of Emhart's corporate predecessors at the Site had resulted in the release or threatened release of hazardous substances. The documents set forth the following allegations:
In the course of responding to the EPA charges, Emhart incurred substantial legal defense costs.
During various time periods when the Site allegedly became contaminated, Emhart's corporate predecessors purchased insurance coverage from a number of companies, including Century and Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual's policy contained a so-called “pollution exclusion,” which appears as boilerplate in many liability policies, that provides as follows:
[T]he insurance does not apply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere or any watercourse or body of water; but this exclusion does not apply if such discharge, dispersal, release or escape is sudden and accidental.
(Def.'s Facts ¶ 27.) Century's policy contained a narrower exclusion for liability arising out of the release of waste products, which disclaimed coverage only for “intentional” or “willful” pollution. ( See id. ¶ 28.)
B. The Emhart Insurance Litigation
In January 2002, Emhart sued Century and Liberty Mutual, along with several of its other insurers, in this Court. Emhart claimed the insurers were obligated, under their respective policies, to pay its costs arising out of contamination at the Site. See generally Emhart Indus., Inc. v. Century Indem. Co., 559 F.3d 57 (1st Cir.2009). The EPA action triggered two aspects of coverage, according to Emhart. First, the policies created a duty to defend Emhart, requiring the insurers to pay the costs of Emhart's legal defense in connection with the EPA proceedings. Second, the policies required indemnification of the cleanup expenses Emhart was ultimately forced to pay pursuant to CERCLA.
Liberty Mutual moved for summary judgment on grounds that it bore no obligation to defend or indemnify Emhart, because of the pollution exclusion. On February 15, 2004, Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lovegreen issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that Liberty Mutual's motion should be denied. ( See Report and Recommendation Emhart v. Home Ins. Co., C.A. No. 02-53 S, Doc. # 220 (D.R.I. Feb. 15, 2004) (hereinafter “R & R”).) In large part, this conclusion rested on the reference to a “major fire” in the EPA documents, as well as evidence regarding the fire that had arisen during discovery:
[B]eginning with the Second Administrative Order by EPA, there was the suggestion of a possibility that a major fire ... may have contributed to the spread of contaminants on the Site and beyond it. Whether such an event would qualify as the “sudden and accidental” occurrence necessary to indicate at least a duty to defend under the Policies, is a question of fact not suitable for resolution at summary judgment.
( Id. at 60.) Liberty Mutual objected to the R & R, but subsequently settled with Emhart's parent company for $250,000 before the Court ruled on the objection. See
Emhart Indus., 559 F.3d at 61.
Century, on the other hand, chose to go to trial. A jury found that Century had no duty to indemnify Emhart under the policy at issue. However, this Court subsequently granted Emhart judgment as a matter of law on its duty to defend claim. The Court found that Century's pollution exclusion did not apply, because the EPA documents did not state that the discharge was “intentional” or “willful.” Therefore, the Court entered judgment against Century. See Emhart Indus., 559 F.3d at 64. Century has since satisfied the judgment and paid more than $6 million in principal and prejudgment interest. ( See “Pl.'s Facts” ¶¶ 19-21.)
Prior to the Court's decision, Century had asserted cross-claims against the other insurers, including Liberty Mutual, for allocation of any defense and indemnity costs determined to be owed to Emhart. After ruling in Emhart's favor against Century, the Court dismissed all cross-claims without prejudice.
C. The Current Lawsuit
Century now renews its claims against Liberty Mutual from the earlier lawsuit, seeking to recover a portion of the judgment paid to Emhart. There are two steps to Century's argument: first, Liberty Mutual had a duty to provide a legal defense to Emhart in connection with the EPA charges under Massachusetts law, which governs Emhart's policies from Liberty Mutual; and second, as a result, Liberty Mutual is liable to Century under Rhode Island law, which governs equitable claims among the parties, pursuant to the doctrine of equitable contribution. According to Century, the doctrine requires Liberty Mutual to cover its share of defense costs by paying Century to offset its liability to Emhart.
II. Liberty Mutual's Duty to Defend
For purposes of whether Liberty Mutual had a duty to defend Emhart, the most critical material facts of this dispute are the substantive assertions contained in the EPA charges against Emhart and the language of Liberty Mutual's policies. There is no dispute about the content of those documents, or that Massachusetts law governs the policies. Furthermore, the parties agree that Liberty Mutual's settlement with Emhart is not relevant to the scope of its duty to defend the company. Thus, resolving the first issue raised by the parties' motions turns entirely on the question of whether Massachusetts law required Liberty Mutual to defend Emhart against the EPA charges.
Under Massachusetts law, an insurer's duty to provide a defense against third-party...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Narragansett Elec. Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co.
...insurer's duty to defend. Id. Accordingly, “some courts refer to the standard as the ‘pleadings test.’ ” Century Indem. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 708 F.Supp.2d 202, 208 (D.R.I.2010) (applying Massachusetts law). Indeed, the application of the pleadings test for determining the duty to d......
-
United Nuclear Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...is a boilerplate form that once was widely used in the liability insurance industry. See, e.g., Century Indem. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 708 F.Supp.2d 202, 206 (D.R.I.2010); City of Northglenn v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 634 F.Supp. 217, 223 (D.Colo.1986). Although wording of the pollution......
-
Century Indem. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...how Century responded; and (ii) whether any other insurers owed Emhart a duty to defend the EPA action.” Century Indem. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 708 F.Supp.2d 202, 215 (D.R.I.2010). Discovery has now closed. In a new round of submissions on Century's motion for summary judgment (ECF No......
-
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Providence Wash. Ins. Co.
...559 F.3d 57 (1st Cir.2009); Century Indem. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 815 F.Supp.2d 508 (D.R.I.2011); Century Indem. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 708 F.Supp.2d 202 (D.R.I.2010). 2. In its brief, appellee PWIC remarks in passing that “[a] direct action against a third-party's insurer's [......
-
CHAPTER 8 Comprehensive General Liability Insurance—The Pollution Exclusions
...Second Circuit: Bedford Affiliates v. Manheimer, 205 F.3d 1321 (2d Cir. 2000); Century Indemnity Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 708 F. Supp.2d 202 (D.R.I. 2010); Mahl Brothers Oil Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 307 F. Supp.2d 474 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). Fourth Circuit: Asbestos......
-
Chapter 5
...on other grounds 476 N.W.2d 382 (Mich. 1991). [233] See, e.g.: First Circuit: Century Indemnity Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 708 F. Supp.2d 202 (D.R.I. 2010); Whittaker Corp. v. American Nuclear Insurers, 671 F. Supp.2d 242 (D. Mass. 2009). Second Circuit: Avondale Industries, Inc. ......
-
Chapter 7
...Second Circuit: Bedford Affiliates v. Manheimer, 205 F.3d 1321 (2d Cir. 2000); Century Indemnity Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 708 F. Supp.2d 202 (D.R.I. 2010); Mahl Brothers Oil Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 307 F. Supp.2d 474 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). Fourth Circuit: Asbestos......
-
CHAPTER 6 Duty to Defend and Insured Litigation
...on other grounds 476 N.W.2d 382 (Mich. 1991). [13] See, e.g.: First Circuit: Century Indemnity Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 708 F. Supp.2d 202 (D.R.I. 2010); Whittaker Corp. v. American Nuclear Insurers, 671 F. Supp.2d 242 (D. Mass. 2009). Second Circuit: Avondale Industries, Inc. v......