USCA1 Opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-1553
PREFERRED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
[Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
Marie Cheung-Truslow with whom Roger A. Emanuelson and Lecomte,
____________________ ____________________ ________
Emanuelson, Motejunas & Doyle were on brief for appellant.
_____________________________
Michael J. Eisele with whom David C. Boch and Bingham, Dana &
__________________ ______________ ________________
Gould were on brief for appellee.
_____
____________________
October 3, 1997
____________________
ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge. On January 20,
_____________________
1995, an oil fire broke out in the boiler room of the Kimball
Towers condominium in Springfield, Massachusetts, that caused
extensive damage from smoke, soot and heat. Kimball Towers
Condominium Association (Kimball) was insured by Preferred
Mutual Insurance Company (Preferred) under a Business Owners
Special Property Policy that covered its property broadly,
with a limit of $11,340,000 and an annual premium of $40,484.
With some exceptions, the policy did not cover steam or hot
water boilers and their equipment. Kimball was also insured
by Travelers Company (Travelers) under a Boiler and Machinery
Policy. Boiler provisions complementary with Preferred's
have been noted. Travelers' policy had no dollar limitation;
the annual "Provisional Premium"1 was $875. Preferred paid
this loss,2 in the amount of $357,279, and now sues Travelers
for this amount as the "primary insurer," or, at least, for a
share. A condition precedent is that Travelers would have
been liable for the loss. The district court held that there
was no such coverage, so that neither alternative was
correct, and granted summary judgment to Travelers in an
extensive opinion. See Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v. Travelers
___ _______________________ _________
Cos., 955 F. Supp. 9 (D. Mass. 1997). Without deciding, it
____
____________________
1. The elasticity related to offered extensions not
subscribed to by Kimball, and not here relevant.
2. No point has been made by it of any loss to Kimball's
boiler and accessory equipment.
-2-
assumed that Travelers' policy's general provisions covered
the loss -- an assumption not contested, and that we adopt --
but concluded that it fell within the stated exclusions. On
this basis we affirm.
The Facts
_________
On summary judgment we of course take the facts
most favorably to plaintiff Preferred, but review the court's
legal conclusions de novo. See, e.g., Dominique v. Weld, 73
_________ _________ ____
F.3d 1156, 1158 (1st Cir. 1996); E.E.O.C. v. Steamship Clerks
________ ________________
Union, Local 1066, 48 F.3d 594, 602-03 (1st Cir.), cert.
__________________ _____
denied, 116 S. Ct. 65 (1995). Construction of insurance
______
contracts and application of their terms to established facts
are matters of law, ultimately for us. See Commercial Union
___ ________________
Ins. Co. v. Walbrook Ins. Co., 7 F.3d 1047, 1050 (1st Cir.
_________ __________________
1993); Falmouth Nat'l Bank v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 920 F.2d
___________________ ____________________
1058, 1061 (1st Cir. 1990).
The fire, according to Preferred, occurred in the
following manner. A leaky seal in the fuel pump, that
supplied oil to the burner that heated the boiler, allowed
oil to be propelled, with air, into the burner tube. Here it
caught fire. This fire caused a melt, allowing the burner to
fall, damaging the oil line. This released oil, fed by
gravity from the storage supply, that caught fire and burned
until ultimately extinguished by the fire department.
-3-
The relevant Travelers' policy provisions (quoted
out of order) are these.
A. COVERAGE
We will pay for direct damage to Covered
Property caused by a Covered Cause of Loss.
1. Covered Property
________________
Covered Property, as used in this
Coverage Part, means any property that:
a. You own;
. . . . .
2. Covered Cause of Loss
_____________________
A Covered Cause of Loss is an "accident"
to an "object."
. . . . .
G. DEFINITIONS
1. "Accident" means a sudden and accidental
breakdown of the "object" or part of the
"object."
. . . . .
5. "Object" means:
a. Unless excluded in the
Declarations, the following
equipment:
(1) Any boiler, including its
piping and accessory equipment.
Interrupting, we read the policy to say that
Travelers will pay (subject to exclusions) for direct damage
to Kimball's property due to the breakdown of the boiler and
its accessory equipment. We consider the burner, the burner
-4-
tube, the mechanical fuel pump, and the electric motor that
operates it, to be accessory equipment. Leaking was a
breakdown, or "accident."
B. EXCLUSIONS
We will not pay for loss or damage
caused directly or indirectly by any of the
following. Such loss or damage is excluded
regardless of any other cause or event that
contributes concurrently or in any sequence to
the loss.
. . . . .
4. Other Exclusions
Loss caused by or resulting from:
a. Fire or combustion explosion that
occurs at the same time as an "accident"
or that ensues from an "accident." With
respect to any electrical equipment
forming a part of an "object," this
exclusion is changed to read:
Fire or explosion outside the
"object" that occurs at the same time as
an "accident" or ensues from an
"accident."
. . . . .
The initial paragraph unambiguously means what it
says. If the fire fell within the provisions of section B4a
it is not covered even though it also met some other
definitions. Cf. Jussim v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., 415
___ ______ __________________________
Mass. 24, 27-28, 610 N.E.2d 954, 955-56 (1993) (noting that
if the proximate cause "is an insured risk, there will be
coverage even though the final form of the property damage,
produced by a series of related events, appears to take the
-5-
loss outside the terms of the policy"). Preferred says the
present issue lies in provision 4a's second sentence because
the loss was caused by the breakdown of the fuel pump that
was "electrical equipment" because it was operated by an
electric motor. Although there was some struggling
vocalizing by Preferred's expert, we can not possibly agree.
We do not rely on the much mentioned fact that the pump and
the motor were by different manufacturers, but they were
independent articles, connected only by the power shaft, with
no electricity reaching the pump. Manifestly there must be
some purpose for the alternative clause in provision 4a, and,
equally manifestly, electricity must play a meaningful part.
To characterize the pump as electrical is nonsense.
Turning, therefore, to 4a's first sentence,
concededly the leak in the pump was an accident to an object.
Whether or not the broken supply line also be considered
accessory equipment, the burning of the fuel supply
unquestionably "ensue[d] from an 'accident.'" It was plainly
excluded.
In this posture Preferred complains that this
conclusion "result[s] in coverage to the insured which [i]s
unrealistically limited." Support is offered by an affidavit
of Kimball's "property manager," who had obtained the
policies:
It has been my continued
understanding and expectation that fire
-6-
originating from the boiler or its
accessory equipment would be covered
under Travelers' Boiler and Machinery
Policy.
Thus we have an insurer that had received a premium
of $40,484, claiming it was unreasonable for an insurer who
had received a premium of $875 not to pay it $357,279, in
part, if not in whole. The lion would lie down with the lamb
-- for dinner.
The Boiler and Machinery policy covered accidents
to the boiler and accessory equipment, and, in terms,
excluded "fire . . . that ensues from an 'accident.'" There
was an accident, and fire ensued. Plaintiff, who is in the
business of writing and interpreting insurance contracts,
sues therefor. We give notice that if it wishes to object to
our assessing double costs it do so, with grounds, within ten
days of the date hereof. See Fed. R. App. P. 38; Cronin v.
___ ______
Town of Amesbury, 81 F.3d 257, 261 (1st Cir. 1996); E.H.
_________________ ____
Ashley & Co. v. Wells Fargo Alarm Servs., 907 F.2d 1274, 1280
____________ ________________________
(1st Cir. 1990).
Affirmed.
________
-7-
