Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-14-05947/USCOURTS-ca6-14-05947-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
JNJ Logistics, L.L.C.
Appellant
Scottsdale Insurance Company
Appellee
Sears Logistics Services, Inc.

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0478n.06

Case Nos. 14-5900/5947

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JNJ LOGISTICS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

SEARS LOGISTICS SERVICES, INC.,

Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE WESTERN 

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

OPINION

BEFORE: GIBBONS and COOK, Circuit Judges; MURPHY, District Judge.*

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. This appeal turns on a single issue: whether 

the designation of “Sears, 3456 Meyers, Memphis, TN 38108” as an additional insured under a 

policy held by JNJ Logistics, LLC extended coverage to Sears Logistics Services, Inc. (“SLS”). 

The district court concluded as a matter of law that it did not and granted summary judgment to 

Scottsdale Insurance Company. Because the insurance policy contains a latent ambiguity and 

there is a genuine issue of material fact about whether the parties intended SLS to be an 

additional insured, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Scottsdale and 

remand for further proceedings.

 

*

The Honorable Stephen J. Murphy III, United States District Judge for the Eastern 

District of Michigan.

 Case: 14-5947 Document: 45-2 Filed: 06/30/2015 Page: 1
Nos. 14-5900/5947

JNJ Logistics, LLC, et al. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company

- 2 -

I.

JNJ Logistics, LLC (“JNJ”) provides hostling services—drivers, tractors, and related 

equipment for moving trailers at warehouses—to corporate customers in Tennessee and 

Mississippi. One of JNJ’s customers was Sears Logistics Services, Inc., which warehouses and 

distributes goods sold in Sears, Roebuck and Company retail stores. In its contracts with SLS, 

JNJ agreed to procure and maintain commercial general liability insurance that named SLS as an 

additional insured. Pursuant to that contractual obligation, JNJ purchased an insurance policy 

from Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”) that was first effective on May 9, 2000. 

Scottsdale acknowledges that JNJ’s 2000 policy named SLS as an additional insured. It was 

renewed on January 1, 2001 for one year and again on January 1, 2002 for another year.

On January 1, 2003, Scottsdale issued what it characterizes as a “new” policy to JNJ 

under a different policy number, although the first page of the 2003 policy states that it is a 

renewal of JNJ’s original policy that dated back to 2000. Under the 2003 policy, JNJ was 

charged a $200 premium for two additional insureds, but the policy did not spell out who those 

additional insureds were.

The 2003 policy was renewed on January 1, 2004. Enclosed in the policy renewal 

documentation transmitted from the Southern General Agency of Tennessee to Scottsdale was a 

list of JNJ’s locations as of December 16, 2003. Included on the list were “Sears—3456 Myers 

[sic], Memphis, TN,” and “Sears SLS—10425 Ridgewood Dr., Olive Branch, MS.” According 

to Scottsdale, this list was provided by JNJ. Like the 2003 policy, the 2004 policy included a 

$200 premium for two additional insureds; unlike the 2003 policy, it named the additional 

insureds, one of which was listed simply as “Sears, 3456 Meyers, Memphis, TN 38108.” 3456 

 Case: 14-5947 Document: 45-2 Filed: 06/30/2015 Page: 2
Nos. 14-5900/5947

JNJ Logistics, LLC, et al. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company

- 3 -

Meyers1is the location of a warehouse owned, operated, and managed by SLS. The facility is 

under the sole custody and control of SLS, and other than SLS no entity with “Sears” in its name 

operates at 3456 Meyers in Memphis. Furthermore, no business called simply “Sears” has ever 

operated at 3456 Meyers. John Ennis, Sr., the sole member of JNJ Logistics, LLC, says that his 

understanding was that SLS had been added to JNJ’s policy as an additional insured.

On July 20, 2004, a man named Darius Grove was allegedly struck by a forklift driven by 

an SLS employee at SLS’s facility at 10425 Ridgewood Drive, Olive Branch, Mississippi. 

Grove was an employee of JNJ Express, Inc.; JNJ Express is a separate entity from JNJ 

Logistics, although Ennis is also the president of JNJ Express. Grove sued SLS, but not JNJ, in 

Mississippi state court. SLS then filed a third-party complaint against JNJ for contractual and 

common-law indemnity. Grove settled his claims against SLS in 2011 and the case was 

dismissed, but SLS’s third-party claims against JNJ were expressly preserved.

On November 29, 2004, more than four months after Grove’s injury, JNJ’s policy was 

amended to add “SLS, Inc.” as an additional insured, in exchange for an additional premium of 

$102.50. Scottsdale maintains that this amendment was made at JNJ’s request, and in support of 

this assertion offers an email exchange between Barkley Insurance and the Southern General 

Agency of Tennessee, which indicates that Barkley Insurance asked that SLS be added to JNJ’s 

policy and that the Southern General Agency did so after confirming with Barkley Insurance 

what interest SLS had in JNJ. Ennis says that he did not ask to add “SLS, Inc.” as an additional 

insured and has no idea why that amendment was made.

 

1

The other record documents are inconsistent in referring to this address either as “3456 

Meyers Road” or “3456 Meyers Avenue.” Whether 3456 Meyers sits on a “Road” or “Avenue” 

is immaterial to the parties’ arguments, so we will simply sidestep this inconsistency and refer to 

3456 Meyers.

 Case: 14-5947 Document: 45-2 Filed: 06/30/2015 Page: 3
Nos. 14-5900/5947

JNJ Logistics, LLC, et al. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company

- 4 -

SLS and JNJ tendered claims to Scottsdale for coverage relating to Grove’s injury but 

Scottsdale denied them on the basis that SLS was not an additional insured at the time of Grove’s 

injury. In September 2010, JNJ brought a declaratory judgment and breach of contract action 

against Scottsdale in Tennessee state court, arguing that “Sears, 3456 Meyers” referred to SLS, 

that the policy provided coverage to SLS at its Ridgewood location as well (where Grove had 

been injured), and that Scottsdale had wrongfully rejected coverage. Scottsdale removed the 

case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.2 SLS filed an amended intervening 

complaint in February 2011, joining JNJ in arguing that Scottsdale wrongfully denied coverage 

to SLS.

During summer 2012 the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On 

November 19, 2012, the district court denied JNJ’s and SLS’s motions for summary judgment 

and granted Scottsdale’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of Scottsdale’s denial of 

coverage to SLS. The district court held that “as a matter of law, SLS is not an additional 

insured under the JNJ-Scottsdale policy.” Essential to this ruling was the district court’s 

conclusion that “‘Sears’ is a different corporate entity from ‘Sears Logistic [sic] Services.’”

The central issue remaining for trial, which is not the subject of this appeal, was whether 

Scottsdale breached its contract with JNJ by refusing to provide a defense to JNJ in SLS’s thirdparty action on the common-law indemnity claims. After a bench trial, the district court ruled in 

favor of JNJ on that issue. Final judgment was entered on July 10, 2014.

 

2

JNJ filed an amended complaint in January 2011 that added a claim for violation of 

Tennessee’s bad faith statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-105. That claim was resolved by the 

parties during the pendency of this appeal.

 Case: 14-5947 Document: 45-2 Filed: 06/30/2015 Page: 4
Nos. 14-5900/5947

JNJ Logistics, LLC, et al. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company

- 5 -

JNJ and SLS timely appealed. Focusing solely on the issue of whether SLS was an 

additional insured, they challenge the district court’s decision denying their motions for 

summary judgment and granting Scottsdale’s motion for summary judgment.

II.

We review de novo the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Scottsdale. 

Keller v. Miri Microsystems LLC, 781 F.3d 799, 806 (6th Cir. 2015). Our review of the district 

court’s order denying summary judgment to JNJ and SLS is also de novo because the district 

court framed its decision as having been “made on purely legal grounds.” Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. 

Co. v. Kay & Kay Contracting, LLC, 545 F. App’x 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Am. 

& Foreign Ins. Co., Inc., v. Sequatchie Concrete Servs., Inc., 441 F.3d 341, 344 (6th Cir. 2006)).

Summary judgment is proper when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact 

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In making this assessment we view the 

record and all inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Summary 

judgment is improper if the nonmoving party has produced evidence “such that a reasonable jury 

could return a verdict” in his favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 

The ultimate inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require 

submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” 

Id. at 251–52.

In determining whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists, we will apply the 

substantive law of the state of Tennessee for the following reasons. To determine the applicable 

substantive law in a diversity-jurisdiction case, federal courts apply the choice-of-law rules of the 

forum state: here, Tennessee. Mill’s Pride, Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 300 F.3d 701, 704 (6th Cir. 

 Case: 14-5947 Document: 45-2 Filed: 06/30/2015 Page: 5
Nos. 14-5900/5947

JNJ Logistics, LLC, et al. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company

- 6 -

2002) (citing Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 (1941)). Tennessee’s 

choice-of-law rules provide that claims based on a contract are presumed to be governed by the 

law of the jurisdiction in which the contract was executed, absent contrary indications such as a 

contractual choice-of-law clause. Town of Smyrna, Tenn. v. Mun. Gas Auth. of Ga., 723 F.3d 

640, 645 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Vantage Tech., LLC v. Cross, 17 S.W.3d 637, 650 (Tenn. Ct. 

App. 1999)). The claims in this case are based on the insurance policy issued by Scottsdale’s 

agent, which was executed in Tennessee and does not contain a choice-of-law clause. This 

points us to Tennessee’s substantive law. The district court applied Tennessee’s substantive law 

and the parties did not object; we will do so as well.

III.

“The central tenet of contract construction is that the intent of the contracting parties at 

the time of executing the agreement should govern.” Planters Gin Co. v. Fed. Compress 

& Warehouse Co., Inc., 78 S.W.3d 885, 890 (Tenn. 2002) (citing Empress Health & Beauty Spa, 

Inc. v. Turner, 503 S.W.2d 188, 190 (Tenn. 1973)). The first step in ascertaining the parties’ 

intent is to look at the plain meaning of the words in the contract and determine whether the 

language is ambiguous. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 195 S.W.3d 609, 611 (Tenn. 2006) (citing 

Planters Gin, 78 S.W.3d at 890). “If the language is clear and unambiguous, the literal meaning 

controls the outcome of the dispute.” Id. “If, however, the words in a contract are susceptible to 

more than one reasonable interpretation,” i.e., if the language is ambiguous even after applying 

the pertinent rules of construction, then the court may consult parol evidence, “including the 

contracting parties’ conduct and statements regarding the disputed provision,” in order to 

ascertain the parties’ intent. Id. at 611–12. Ambiguity does not arise merely because the parties 

interpret contractual provisions differently; “[a] contract is ambiguous only when it is of 

uncertain meaning and may fairly be understood in more ways than one.” Johnson v. Johnson, 

 Case: 14-5947 Document: 45-2 Filed: 06/30/2015 Page: 6
Nos. 14-5900/5947

JNJ Logistics, LLC, et al. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company

- 7 -

37 S.W.3d 892, 896 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting Farmers-Peoples Bank v. Clemmer, 519 S.W.2d 801, 

805 (Tenn. 1975)).

There are two types of ambiguities that may arise in a contract: patent and latent. See 

Gredig v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 891 S.W.2d 909, 915 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (citing 

Union Planters Corp. v. Harwell, 578 S.W.2d 87, 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978)). The distinction 

between the two has been characterized as “ambiguous terms” versus “ambiguous facts.” Id. “A

patent ambiguity is one produced by the uncertainty, contradictoriness, or deficiency of the 

language of an instrument . . . .” Teague v. Sowder, 114 S.W. 484, 488 (Tenn. 1908) (quoting 

Weatherhead v. Sewell, 28 Tenn. 272, 295 (Tenn. 1848)). By contrast, a latent ambiguity arises 

not “from the words themselves, but from the ambiguous state of extrinsic circumstances to 

which the words of the instrument refer.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Unlike a patent 

ambiguity, which is apparent on the face of the document, a latent ambiguity arises “when the 

document’s terms are applied or executed.” Horadam v. Stewart, 2008 WL 4491744, at *6

(Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 88 (8th ed. 2004)).

The additional insured endorsement at issue here did not contain a patent ambiguity. As 

the district court noted, the plain language of the policy is quite clear that “Sears, 3456 Meyers” 

is an additional insured. But when the time comes to figure out who or what “Sears, 

3456 Meyers” is, a latent ambiguity arises from extrinsic facts: no entity with the legal name 

“Sears” operates or has ever operated at 3456 Meyers in Memphis. What is more, there is 

apparently no entity in either Tennessee or Mississippi known solely by the legal name “Sears.” 

Rather, 3456 Meyers is under the sole custody and control of Sears Logistics Services, Inc., 

which is a distributor for and wholly owned subsidiary of Sears, Roebuck and Company, which 

in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sears Holdings Corporation. The term “Sears, 

 Case: 14-5947 Document: 45-2 Filed: 06/30/2015 Page: 7
Nos. 14-5900/5947

JNJ Logistics, LLC, et al. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company

- 8 -

3456 Meyers” thus is subject to several different reasonable interpretations: it might refer to 

Sears Logistics Services, Inc.; Sears, Roebuck and Company; Sears Holdings Corporation; or 

perhaps some other entity with “Sears” in its name. That is not to say that all of these 

interpretations are equally likely, but they are sufficiently plausible to make the additional 

insured designation ambiguous.

Deciding whether resolution of a contractual ambiguity presents a question of law or 

question of fact can be a thorny problem; different jurisdictions have taken different approaches 

at different times depending on the type of contract at issue. See generally Randall H. Warner, 

All Mixed Up About Contract: When Is Contract Interpretation a Legal Question and When Is It 

a Fact Question?, 5 Va. L. & Bus. Rev. 81 (2010). Tennessee’s approach, however, is that when 

ambiguity remains after the court applies the pertinent rules of construction, the “legal meaning 

of the contract become[s] a question of fact.” Planters Gin, 78 S.W.3d at 890 (internal quotation 

marks and alterations omitted); see also Gredig, 891 S.W.2d at 915 (citing Harwell, 578 S.W.2d 

at 92) (holding that resolution of a latent ambiguity in an insurance contract—whether or not 

Harwell, who was on leave at the time of the acts complained of, was an “employee” in the 

ordinary sense of the word—presented a question of fact for resolution by the jury).

In this case, both sides have produced evidence such that a reasonable jury could resolve 

this factual dispute in their favor. JNJ and SLS, for their part, have presented evidence that could 

allow a reasonable jury to conclude that “Sears, 3456 Meyers” made SLS an additional insured. 

As discussed above, JNJ had a contractual obligation to secure insurance coverage for SLS, and 

Scottsdale admits that SLS was an additional insured under JNJ’s policy until January 1, 2003. 

SLS was the only business with “Sears” in its name with which JNJ did business. JNJ and SLS 

have introduced evidence showing that the facility at 3456 Meyers is and was under the sole 

 Case: 14-5947 Document: 45-2 Filed: 06/30/2015 Page: 8
Nos. 14-5900/5947

JNJ Logistics, LLC, et al. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company

- 9 -

control of SLS and that no other entity with “Sears” in its name has ever operated at that 

location. Furthermore, a fax sent from JNJ to Barkley Insurance and the Southern General 

Agency (Scottsdale’s agents) in 2000 states that JNJ operated at “Sears Logistics Services” at 

3456 Meyers, which could be construed by a reasonable jury to mean that Scottsdale had actual 

knowledge that the “Sears” doing business at 3456 Meyers was SLS. JNJ also points out that the 

additional insured endorsement that names “Sears, 3456 Meyers” insured the “organization” 

listed, but the term “organization” is not defined in the policy. Ruth Crocker, an underwriter at 

Southern General Agency, testified in a deposition that the 3456 Meyers address did not 

designate a location where work was being performed but merely “a mailing address to deliver 

the additional insured endorsement to.” JNJ argues that it therefore expected not only that SLS 

was covered, but that SLS was covered for its operations at the Ridgewood location (where 

Grove was injured) as well as the Meyers location. JNJ also points to a document entitled 

“Detail Loss Information for Selected Policy,” prepared by Scottsdale after JNJ’s and SLS’s 

claims were filed, which lists one of the claimants as “Sears (SLS Logistics)” at the location of 

3456 Meyers in Memphis. Taken together, this evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact 

about whether the parties intended “Sears, 3456 Meyers” to extend coverage to SLS.

In Tennessee, as in other jurisdictions, the general rule of long standing is that “in 

construing an insurance policy, uncertainties or ambiguities must be construed strongly against 

the insurer and in favor of the insured.” Travelers Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 491 S.W.2d 

363, 366 (Tenn. 1973). Notwithstanding this background rule, we think Scottsdale has also 

raised a genuine issue of material fact that precludes entry of summary judgment in favor of JNJ 

and SLS. Scottsdale points out that the list of locations submitted with JNJ’s 2003 policy 

renewal listed “Sears” at the 3456 Meyers location, but “Sears SLS” at the 10425 Ridgewood 

 Case: 14-5947 Document: 45-2 Filed: 06/30/2015 Page: 9
Nos. 14-5900/5947

JNJ Logistics, LLC, et al. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company

- 10 -

location. Scottsdale asserts that this list was provided by JNJ. The record does not allow us to 

assess definitively whether this assertion is true, but if it is, it tends to show that JNJ viewed 

“Sears” at 3456 Meyers as a different entity from SLS. Scottsdale further points out that JNJ’s 

policy was amended in November 2004—months after Grove’s injury—to add “SLS, Inc.” as an 

additional insured, and that when JNJ’s policy was renewed on January 1, 2005, it included three

additional insureds: “SLS, Inc.” at 10425 Ridgewood Drive in Olive Branch, “Sears” at 3456 

Meyers in Memphis, and “Coors Brewery” at 5151 Raines Road in Memphis. These facts also 

could be read by a reasonable jury to suggest that the parties viewed “Sears, 3456 Meyers” as a 

different entity from SLS.

The ultimate touchstone is the intent of the parties, Christenberry v. Tipton, 160 S.W.3d 

487, 494 (Tenn. 2005), and in these muddled circumstances, ascertaining who the parties 

intended to cover with the additional insured designation for “Sears, 3456 Meyers” is a question 

for the finder of fact. Summary judgment was improper.

IV.

We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Scottsdale and remand for 

further proceedings.

 Case: 14-5947 Document: 45-2 Filed: 06/30/2015 Page: 10