Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute arising from charges of sexual harassment brought by a former employee (Employee) against the one-time president (President) of Jasmine Company, Inc. After President filed an action against Jasmine's liability insurance provider (Insurer), seeking defense and indemnification for the harassment charges, Insurer filed a third-party complaint against Jasmine itself, requesting a declaratory judgment that it had not duty to defend or indemnify Jasmine for the harassment claims. The district court granted summary judgment on the third-party claims for Jasmine, holding that Insurer had to defend and indemnify Jasmine. At issue on appeal was whether a finder of fact must conclude that the conduct underlying the sexual harassment charges did or did not begin before Jasmine's insurance policy took effect. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that neither party was entitled to summary judgment, as the question of when the harassing conduct that gave rise to Employee's claims began was a quintessential question for a factfinder. View "Manganella v. Evanston Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This insurance coverage dispute arose from charges of sexual harassment brought by a one-time employee against Appellant, the former president of Jasmine Company, Inc. Appellant sought a defense to and indemnity for the harassment claims from Appellee, Jasmine's liability insurance provider. The district court ruled that Appellant was not entitled to coverage from Appellee because, under the doctrine of issue preclusion, a prior arbitration between Appellant and the purchaser of his business conclusively established that Appellant's conduct fell within an exclusion to Appellee's insurance policy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the arbitration presented Appellant with the full and fair opportunity for adjudication on the issue at hand; and (2) therefore, the district court was correct to bar Appellant from disputing the applicability of the exclusion based on the doctrine of issue preclusion. View "Manganella v. Evanston Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The State enacted an Act in 2011 pursuant to which health insurers were required to disclose, upon written request from a public school district, aggregate loss information pertaining to any group policies held by the district's employees. Maine Education Association Benefits Trust, which managed a statewide health insurance plan for a substantial segment of Maine's public school work force, subsequently filed suit in the district court, seeking to permanently enjoin the law prior to its enforcement. The Trust alleged that because its information constituted a confidential trade secret, the Act's disclosure requirement resulted in an uncompensated taking proscribed by the Fifth Amendment. The district court denied the Trust's motion for a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Trust did not have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its takings claim. View "Me. Educ. Ass'n Benefits Trust v. Cioppa" on Justia Law

Appellant was among a number of homeowners in multiple states claiming that their mortgage companies wrongfully demanded an increase in flood insurance coverage to levels beyond the amounts required by their mortgages. In this case, the First Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the pertinent mortgage provision explicitly gave the lender discretion to prescribe the amount of flood insurance. However, the Court held that the district court dismissal of Appellant's complaint must be vacated, as (1) a supplemental document given to Appellant at her real estate closing entitled "Flood Insurance Notification" reasonably may be read to state that the mandatory amount of flood insurance imposed at that time would remain unchanged for the duration of the mortgage; and (2) given the ambiguity as to the Lender's authority to increase the coverage requirement, Appellant was entitled to proceed with her breach of contract and related claims. View "Lass v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

This putative class action was one of a number of breach-of-contract suits being brought against financial institutions nationwide by mortgagors who claimed that they were improperly forced to increase flood insurance coverage on their properties. The plaintiff in this case asserted that Bank of America's demand that he increase his flood coverage by $46,000 breached both the terms of his mortgage contract and the contract's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court concluded that the pertinent provision of the mortgage unambiguously permitted the lender to require the increased flood coverage and, hence, it granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of dismissal in favor of the Bank, holding that the mortgage was reasonably susceptible to an understanding that supported the plaintiff's breach of contract and implied covenant claims. Remanded. View "Kolbe v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs purchased a flood insurance policy from Appellee, American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida. Their policy was issued pursuant to a federal program under which private insurers issue and administer standardized flood insurance policies (WYO companies), and all claims are paid by the government. After a flood damaged their home in Rhode Island, including the contents of their basement, Plaintiffs sought compensation. American Bankers disallowed much of the amount claimed, asserting that the contents of Plaintiffs' basement were not covered by their policy. Plaintiffs subsequently brought suit in federal court, arguing that the Declarations Page of their policy created an ambiguity as to the scope of coverage and that, under federal common law and general insurance law principles, this ambiguity should be resolved in their favor. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of American Bankers. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' claim was not remotely a claim on which a WYO company may be required to pay damages. View "McGair v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an American company (OneBeacon), claims that a Canadian company, (Aviva), is obligated to reinsure OneBeacon for policies OneBeacon issued to certain entities in the early 1980s. The district court granted summary judgment to Aviva. The First Circuit affirmed, stating that there was no evidence that Aviva agreed to provide reinsurance beyond the term of the first policy year. View "OneBeacon Am. Ins.Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada" on Justia Law

The EPA initiated efforts to remediate contamination at the Rhode Island Centredale Manor Superfund Site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 and issued a unilateral administrative order to compel entities, including NE Container and Emhart to remove hazardous substances that had been disposed of at the Site as part of the former operations of several companies. Emhart sued NE Container and its insurers, which had provided general commercial liability policies to NE Container during different time periods from the late 1960s through the mid-1980s. Travelers agreed to contribute to NE Container's defense pursuant to a reservation of rights, while PWIC took the position that it had no duty to defend. Travelers has incurred significant defense costs and filed this suit, seeking contribution from PWIC. The district court ruled that PWIC was not contractually obligated to defend NE Container in the Emhart action, observing that the alleged property damage occurred before the commencement of the PWIC policy period between 1982 and 1985. The First Circuit vacated. The district court mistakenly focused solely on the timing of the insured's alleged polluting activities, rather than also considering the potential timing of property damage caused by those activities. View "Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Providence WA Ins. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Oxford contracted with Airlarr, to work on Airlarr's airplane at an estimated cost close to $70,000. The work was complete in 2007 and, in 2010, Airlarr sued for breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, and state-law claims. The complaint alleged that a window cracked during the flight home and listed various defects: uncomfortable seats, leaking fuel injectors, a cracked turbocharger, and improperly installed carpet. Oxford notified Global, which had issued Oxford a commercial general liability and requested that Global defend it. Global disclaimed both coverage and duty to defend. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Global. The First Circuit vacated with respect to duty to defend. Duty to defend is ordinarily broader than its duty to indemnify. In Maine, the insurer must defend if the claims in the complaint create even a remote possibility of coverage. If Airlarr proves its case, there will likely be little indemnification since most of the claimed injuries appear to be covered by exclusions, but the duty to defend is triggered by any realistic possibility of any damage that might be within coverage and outside the exclusions and the damaged window creates that prospect. View "Oxford Aviation, Inc. v. Global Aerospace, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2008, MDS purchased a vessel and executed a note in favor of FirstBank, secured by a preferred ship mortgage, under an agreement that required that they maintain insurance. In 2009, Customs and Border Protection seized the vessel as part of a drug enforcement action. The search and seizure damaged the vessel, significantly decreasing its value. Customs notified FirstBank, which initiated an administrative forfeiture proceeding, intervened in the criminal case, obtained voluntary dismissal of the indictment against the vessel, then submitted an insurance claim for "loss of the vessel including, without limitation, the value of the Bank's collateral, legal fees incurred in attempting to secure its release, as well as any applicable costs and interests." The insurer denied the claim. The district court granted FirstBank partial summary judgment and awarded $74,512.50 in attorneys' fees for costs and expenses incurred in securing release of the vessel and defending the validity of the policy. The First Circuit affirmed, finding no genuine issues of material fact.View "Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Diaz-Santiago" on Justia Law