First Circuit holds that pro rata allocation does not apply to attorney's fees in long tail loss

In a case with odd facts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held that under Massachusetts law, in long tail losses attorney's fees are not subject to pro rata allocation. 


I'm not going to go into great detail of the facts of the case.  Suffice it to say that the First Circuit's recitation of those facts and the procedural history fairly drip with disdain for the insurer's actions and litigation strategy.  Rather than stating a straightforward prediction that the SJC would not apply pro rata allocation to defense costs (a subject of debate among insurance coverage attorneys), it chided the insurer for removing the case to federal court where new state law cannot be made. 


The reasoning of the First Circuit that the duty to defend is a broad duty that should not be subject to pro rata allocation is sound.  But in the context of the case the court has left room for insurers to argue that bad facts make bad law and that Massachusetts state courts should ignore the decision for that reason.




A substantial oil spill occurred on property owned by the Peabody-Essex Museum, and eventually migrated off-property to land owned by Heritage Plaza.  Heritage Plaza discovered the oil in 2003 and made a claim against the Museum.  The Massachusetts of Department of Environmental Protection issued a Notice of Responsibility to the museum.

The museum sought coverage from U.S. Fire Insurance Company, its insurer from December, 1983 to December, 1985.  U.S. Fire denied a duty to defend the private demand from Heritage Plaza, but accepted defense of the DEP claim with a reservation of rights.

The museum retained legal counsel and an environmental consultant and tendered the bills to U.S. Fire.  It received no payment for the defense of the public claim even though U.S. Fire had agreed to defend that claim.  It finally sent a payment totaling $611.41, which it calculated by unilaterally reducing the hourly rate of counsel to $200 per hour and unilaterally reducing the bills to what it considered to be the percent spent on the public claim.  It made no payment for the environmental consultant,

The museum sued U.S. Fire and, in 2013, was awarded judgment of over $1.5 million in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 

In Peabody Essex Museum,Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., __ F.3d__, 2015 WL 5172841 (1st Cir. 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that US Fire's persistent failure to make any payment towards defense costs "despite having nominally accepted that duty may be treated as a wrongful refusal to defend upon receipt of notice of a claim." 

The court then turned to the issue of how the costs and fees should be divided between the insurer and insured. 

The court first held that the US District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the beginning of the 1983-1985 policy period was the start date for the allocation period even though that date "has a make believe quality." 

The District Court had applied a fact-based allocation rather than the default time on the risk method set forth in Boston Gas Co. v. Century Indem. Co., 454 Mass. 337 (2009).  In a fact based allocation, costs are attributed to a policy period based on the percentage of damage that occurred during that period.  Courts generally agree that a fact-based allocation is best, but it is often impossible to produce facts indicating how much damage occurred in one 12-month period versus another of a 30 year long undiscovered contamination.  Some courts have applied it in sexual abuse cases, where an institution allowed sexual abuse of many minors over a period of time, because in that instance it is possible to determine how many allegations of abuse occurred in one year over another.

The time on the risk method, as set forth in Boston Gas, allocates damages based on the percentage of time a particular insurer provided coverage out of the entire period of the loss.

The District Court apparently allocated loss based on a finding that 9,000 square feet of oil damage occurred during the two year policy period.  (The total square feet damaged is not clear from the opinion.)

The First Circuit affirmed the holding of the District Court that time on the risk proration of Boston Gas Co. v. Century Indem. Co., 454 Mass. 337 (2009) does not apply to defense costs.  It held that the arguments of U.S. Fire "appear diminutive next to the long-standing state precedent on the broad and formidable contractual duty to defend that heavily favors insureds and hat stands apart from indemnity obligations."    It tempered its holding by adding, "we have warned, time and again, that litigants who reject a state forum in favor of federal court under diversity jurisdiction cannot expect that new state-law trails will be blazed" by the federal court.


Thanks to Mike Tracy for bringing this case to my attention. 

U.S. District Court applies continuous trigger, holds that under Boston Gas insured is responsible for proportionate share of defense costs

D.N. Lukens, Inc. was a a defendant in several suits alleging harm from exposure to toxic substances owned, supplied, sold or controlled by Lukens.  

While one of the suits, Mastrogiacomo, was pending, the Boston Gas decision was handed down.  In that decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts surprised everyone by holding that long-tail losses would be allocated on a pro rata time-on-the-risk method, instead of by a joint and several liability method.  The SJC also held that the insured will bear a proportionate share of the loss for any time period during the long-tail loss that no coverage is available. 

Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Lukens' insurer, informed Lukens that under Boston Gas Lukens was responsible for its pro rata share of any settlement or judgment because there were periods of time during the risk exposure that Lukens was uninsured.  Utica informed Lukens that it was conveying settlement authority to counsel in an effort to resolve the case prior to trial.

Lukens informed Utica that it believed it was insured for all relevant periods and asked for time to search for additional insurance coverage.  (Such a situation is not unusual in long-tail losses.  That's why everyone should keep copies of every liability policy ever issued to them, forever, in a place where they can be found.  Otherwise, after staff turnover and changes of location and changes of insurance agents and changes of insurers, how will they know what policy they had fifty years ago?)

Utica nevertheless settled the Mastrogiacomo lawsuit for $145,000, and calculated that $14,964 of that amount was attributable to Lukens.  That amount remains unpaid.

Lukens also sought coverage from Utica for asbestos claims filed against it.  Utica agreed to indemnify Lukens for its time on the risk and reserved the right to seek contribution from Lukens for uninsured periods.  Based on that reservation, Lukens sought to take control over the defense in the asbestos cases. 

In Graphic Arts Mut. Ins. Co. v. D.N. Lukens, Inc., 2013 WL 2384333 (D. Mass.), Utica sought summary judgment. 

The court held, first, unsurprisingly, that the injuries alleged were long-tail losses that came within the Boston Gas analysis. 

The court noted that Boston Gas did not resolve the issue of triggers of coverage.  Triggers of coverage determine which policy periods are triggered by a long-tail loss.  There are four basic theories of triggers of coverage: manifestation, injury-in-fact, exposure, and continuous.  Massachusetts courts have declined to adopt a single theory, holding that which trigger applies depends on the circumstances. 

The court held that the continuous trigger method most accurately reflects the reasonable expectations of the insured.  Under that method a loss occurs from the time of exposure to a hazardous substance to the time when physical harm from such exposure becomes manifest.  It also noted that in the case before it the continuous trigger would provide Lukens with the greatest amount of insurance coverage, and implied that that was one reason to apply  that trigger. 

The court then turned to whether Lukens must contribute its proportionate share to the settlement in the Mastrogiacomo suit.  "What is troublesome .. . is the fact that a settlement was reached without  the input or acceptance from Lukens."  The court held that in such circumstances Lukens was not required to contribute to the settlement.  It noted that Boston Gas contemplates the written consent of all parties to the settlement.  It declined to grant summary judgment to Utica on a 93A count arising its actions with respect to the settlement. 

Lukens argued that in the asbestos cases Utica was barred from disclaiming its duty to indemnify because it refused to relinquish to Lukens control over the litigation even though Lukens would be assigned over 60 percent of the indemnity allocation. The court's analysis of the issue was somewhat murky, but it appears to have held that Lukens was not entitled to control the defense but that it was responsible for its proportionate share of the costs of defense. 

The court denied summary judgment on the issue of the actual allocation of loss, on the ground that there was a material dispute of fact over the underlying claimants' exposure to asbestos.