### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 61043
QB E I NS URA NCE C OR P OR AT I ON P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. BROW N & M I TC HELL , I NC D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt fo r th e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

B e fo r e J O L L Y , W IE N E R , a n d B A R K S D A L E , C ir c u it J u d g e s . E

. G R A D YJO L L Y , C i rcui tJu dg e: In t h i s i n suran ce c overage/ excl u sion d i spu t e, B row n & M i t chel l , I n c. ( “ BM I ” ) a p p e a l s t he di s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n t o f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t t o QBE In su ra n ce C orp . (“ Q B E ”)

. Q B E origina l l y f i l ed a d eclara tory j u d gm en t acti on to d eterm i n e w h etherB M I ’ s exc es s c om m er c i alge ner all i abi l i t y po l i cy (th e “P oli cy ”) req u i red Q B E t o p rov i d e cov era ge f or or de fen d B M I i n a w ron gfu lde a th su i t. Q B E argu ed t h at t h e u n derl yi n g i n ci den t di d not consti t u te a n “ occurrence”
u n d e r th e P o lic y o r , in th e a lte r n a tiv e , th a t B M I’s a lle g e d m is c o n d u c t fe ll w ith in th e P oli cy ’ s “pro fessi on a l serv i ces exc l u sion

. ” In i ts gr a n t of su m m a ry j u d gm en t, th e d i stri ct cou rt con cl u d e d th a t B M I’ s “i n ten ti on a l ” con d u ct, as o p p ose d to United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

17, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 61043

Moresp ecif

ic ally , th e co mp laint st ate d: 1 Defendant, Bro wn & Mitchell, Inc., . . . was the engineerin g firm respo nsib le for ove rse ei ng th e f

o rc e d m ai n s e w e r li n e th at w a s b e i n g i n s t all e d

. . . . A st he engineerin

g firm overseeing

t he proje ct , Bro wn & Mitchell, Inc. was respon sibl e for the ulti mate design, c on struction and inspe ctionof and safetyissu es a sso ci ate d withth e tr enchwhichcollaps ed . Atalltim es , Bro wn &Mit chell, In c. owed a d ut

y to Eleazar C

asiano toperfo rm i tsp rof e ssional respo nsib ilitiesas engineers in acco rdance with the appropriatestandards . . . . Brown & Mitchell, I nc. acted negligen tly

. . . in th e per formanceof its responsibilit ies b y : a. Failure to co nduct amanualsoil t est; b

. Allowin gth e tr encht o b e du gwithn ear vertical wall s c. Allowin g the roadwayto be und ermin ed b y the trench construction d. Allowin g excav ated materi als to b e pl aced on the edge of th e tr ench e . F aili n g t o i n s ur e th at th e s i d e wall s o f th e tr e nc h we r e s h o r ed with su pp ort wall s f. Failingto in sure that aworkin g trench boxwas in plac e fo r workers [sic] safety g. Allowin g a track hoe to operate alon g the trench whileMr. Casi anowas in it 2 ne gl i ge ntc o nduc t , i

. e . , a n a c c i de nt , e xc l ude d i t f r o m c o ve r ag e w i t ho utr e ac hi ng
w he t he r t he pr o fe s s i o nals e r vi c e s e xc l us i o n a ppl i ed. W e ho l d t hatt he professi on alser vi ces excl u si on ap pl i es an d, t h eref ore, preter m i t t h e qu est i on of
w het hert he under l yi ng i nci dent c ons t i t ut es an “ oc c urr enc e” u nder t he Pol i c y. Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n t i s A F F I RMED. I

. F A CT UA L B A CK GRO UND E l eazar C asi an o (“ C asi an o” ) d i ed w h en a trench col l ap sed du ri n g a sew er i nst al l at i on j ob f

orw hi c h B M I s er ved as t he proj ec t engi neer . O n A pri l27, 2007, C i l via C a sian o T ra n q u a l i n o ( “T ra n q u a l i n o”), h i s m oth er, fi l ed a w ron gfu lde a th
ac t i on agai nstB M I and ot her s. At t he t i m e o f hi s deat h, C as i ano w as an e m pl oyee o f

Bi g W ar r i o r Cor po r at i o n, t he g e ne r alc o nt r ac t o r pe r f o r m i ng t he
se w eri nst al l at i on. Tranqual i no’ s c om pl ai nt al l ege d that“ [ a] s t he [ engi neer i ng] fi rm ov erse ein g th e p roject, [ B M I]

. . . ow ed a d u ty t o [ C a sian o] t o p erform i ts p rofession a lresp on sibi l i ti es a s en gin ee rs i n acco rd a n ce w i th the ap p rop ri a te
s ta n d a r d s ” a n d th a t, w ith n e g li g e n c e a n d re c k le s s d is r e g a r d , it b r e a c h e d th is dut y by fai l i ng t o t ake s t eps t o e nsur e t he t r enc h’ s st r uct urali nt egr i t y. 1N o. 08- 61043

h. EnlistingMr

. C as ia no to assist in the measuring of the trench from insi de it I. Failingto insure thata safe mean s of egress was avail abl e toMr. Ca siano j. Failingto instruct a s to the recognition and avoidance of th e h az ards of working inanu nprot ected trench k. Failingto stop unsafeacts of the contracto r l. Contrib utin g to the unsafe acts m. Other acts of n egligenceto be shown at the trial of this matter. (e mp h a si s a dd ed).

The declarato ry ju dgment sou ght re lief against numero us parties, not allof which 2 were potential additional insureds. Only BMI has appealed. Thus, we address on lyQBE ’s dut y to def

end BM I. 3 B M I soug h tpol i cy cover age an d d efen se benefi t s f rom Q B E , w i t h w h om i t ha d an excess com m erci algen erall i a b il ity p ol i cy. Th e P ol i cy provi ded
c ove r age t o BM I f

orc er t ai n ri sks , i ncl udi ng “bodi l y i nj ury” c ause d by a n

“ o c c urr en ce. ” The Po l i c y de f i ne d a n “ o c c ur r e nc e ” a s “ an ac c i de nt , i nc l udi ng c o nt i nuo us o r r e pe at e d e xp o s ur e t o s ubs t ant i al l y t he s am e g e ne r alha r m f ul cond i t i on s. ” Th e P ol i cy expressl y excl u ded cl ai m s f or bod i l y i nj u ry ari si n g f rom th e re n d e r in go r fa ilu r e to re n d e r p r o fe s s io n a l s e r v ic e s a s fo llo w s : “T h is i ns ur anc e do e s no ta ppl y t o . . . ‘bo di l y i nj ur y’o r ‘ pr o pe r t y da m ag e ’due t o t he rend eri n g or fai l u re t o render an y professi on alser vi ce. Th i s i n cl u des bu t i s not l i m i t ed t o: . . . en gi n eeri n g servi ces, incl u di n g rel ated sup ervi sory ori n spect i on s e r v ic e s ; . . . . ” In response to B M I’ s d e m a n d f or c overage, Q B E sough t a decl arator y j udgm entt o t he e f

fec tt hat B M I ’ s c l ai m s w er e no t c ove r ed byt he Pol i c y and t hat Q B E h ad n o du t y t o defend B M I i n t h e w rongfuldeath su i t
. B M I an d Q B E t h en f i l ed cross

- m ot i on s f

or s u m m ary j u dg m en t
. T h e di st ri ct court gran t ed su m m ary ju d g m e n t to Q B E

. T h e d is t r ic t c o u r t fo u n d th a t , a lt h o u g h T r a n q u a li n o ’s 2
c o m p la in t c h a r a c te r iz e d B M I’s co n d u c t a s n e g lig en t, it o n lya lle g e d “in te n tio n a l”
ac t i o ns a nd i nac t i o ns and t hat any har m w as a f o r e s e e ab l e c o ns e que nc e o f t heN o. 08- 61043

4 al l e ge d c o nduc t
. A s a re s ul t , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t c o nc l ude d t hatt he r e w as no

“ o c c ur r e nc e ” a s def

i n ed b y t he Po l i c y and , t hus , no c o ve r ag e o r dut y t o de fe nd. B M I appeal s. As be l ow , Q B E ar gues on appe alt hat B M I ’ s c onductw as notan “o c c u r r e n c e ” a n d , in t h e a lte r n a tiv e , if th e c o lla p s e w a s a n “o c c u r r e n c e ,” th e n it i s e xc l ude d b y t he Po l i c y’ s pr o fe s s i o nals e r vi c e s e xc l us i o n. II. DI S CU S S I ON We r e v i e w a g r a n to f s u mma r y j u d g me n t d e n o v o , a p p l y i n g t h e s a me s ta n d a r d a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Bol t o n v . Ci ty of D al l as , 47 2 F

. 3 d 26 1 , 26 3 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 00 6)

. O ur i nqui r y “ i s l i m i t e d t o t he s um m ar y j udg m e ntr e c o r d b e f o r e t he tri a lcou rt. ” Top al i an v . Ehr m an , 9 5 4 F .2 d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 3 1 n .1 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). W e
m ustvi ew t he e vi denc e i n t he l i ght m ost fav orabl e t o t he non- m ovi ng par t y, Ma tsu sh ita E lec

. In d u s. Co . v . Zen ith R a d io Cor p. , 475 U

. S. 574 , 587 ( 19 86 ) , a nd th e m o v a n t h a s th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in gth is co u r t t h a t s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t is
a p p r o p r ia te , C elo texCo rp . v . C a tre tt , 477 U

. S

. 317 , 3 2 3 (1 986 )

. Su m m ary j u dg m en t i s app ropri ate w h ere t h e com pe te n t sum m ary j u dg m en t evi den ce de m o ns t r at e s t hatt he r e i s no g e nuine i s s ue o f m at e r i alfac t a nd t he m o vi ng p a r ty is e n tit le d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tt e r o f la w . B ol t on , 4 7 2 F .3 d a t 2 6 3 ; see F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 56(c )

. Ag en u i n e is sue of m ater i alfactex i st s i f a reasonab l e j u ry c oul d ent era ver di c tforthe non- m ovi ng par t y. A n d ers on v. L i berty L obby, I n c. , 4 7 7 U .S

. 2 4 2 , 2 5 2 (19 8 6 ). W e m ay aff i rm su m m ary j u dg m en t on a n y basi s r ai sed b e lo w a n d s u p p o r te d b y th e re c o r d

. G r e ni e r v . Me d. Eng’ g Cor p. , 243 F. 3d 200, 2 0 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). U nde r M i s s i s s i ppil aw, w he t he r a l i ab i l i t y c ar r i e r ha s a d u t y t o de fe nd d e p e n d s o n th e p o l i c y la n g u a g e a n d th e a lle g a tio n s o f th e co m p la in t. U

. S. Fi de l i ty & G uar . Co. v . O m ni ba nk , 8 1 2 S o . 2 d 1 9 6 , 2 0 0 ( M is s . 2 0 0 2 ). U n d e rth is
so- cal l ed “ei gh t -corners” t est , t h e al l egati on s i n t h e com pl ai n t are ana l yzed ag ai ns t t he l ang uag e i n t he po l i c y t o de t e r m i ne c o ve r ag e a nd t he dut y t o de fe nd. D el t a & P i n e La n dCo. v. Nati o n w id e Ag ribu si n ess I n s. Co. , 530 F. 3d 395, 403N o. 08- 61043

I nf ull , th e exclu sionr ea ds : 3 2. Ex cl usio ns

This insurance does not applyto:

* * * s. Pro fessi onal Serv ices “Bo dilyin

jury” or “property damage” due to renderin g or failure to r ende r anypro fession al servic e . Thi sinclu d e sb ut is not limited t o : * * * (3) En ginee rin g services, includingrel ated supervisoryor in sp ectionservic es. . .

5 n. 9 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8) ( c i t i ng Inga l ls S h i pb u i l d i ng v. F

ed. I n s. Co. , 410 F. 3d 214, 225 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ))

. If t h e co m p la in t s ta te s a cla im th a t is “w ith in o r a r g u a b ly
w i th i n the scop e of cov era ge pr ov i d ed b y th e p oli cy , ” t h en the i n su rer h a s a d u ty t o de fe nd. A m . G u a r. & L iab. I n s. Co. v. 190 6 C o. , 273 F

. 3d 605 , 610 ( 5th C i r. 200 1)

. Final l y, M iss i ssi pp il aw dem an ds t h at “ t h e l an gu age i n i n suran ce c o nt r ac t s , e s pe c i al l y e xc l us i o nar y c l aus e s , b e c o ns t r ue d s t r o ngl y agai ns tt he d ra ft er.” B u r to n v . C h o cta w Co u n ty , 7 30 So

. 2 d 1 , 8 (M i s s . 1 99 7) ( c i t i ng Nat i onw i de Mut
. I

ns. Co. v. G arr iga , 6 3 6 S o . 2 d 6 5 8 , 6 6 2 (M iss

. 1 9 9 4 )). A s di scussed abov e, t h e P ol i cy bet w een B M I an d Q B E li m i t s c overage f or bod i l y i nj u ri es ari si n g f rom rendit i on of

or fai l u re t o render professi on alser vi ces in clu di n g “ en gi n eeri n g servi ces, i n cl u di n g rel ated sup ervi sory ori n spect i on servi ces. ” N ei t h er “ professi on alservi ces” n or “ en gi n eeri n g servi ces” i s def i n ed 3 fu rth e r. M iss iss ip p i cou rts , h o w e v e r, h a v e co n clu d e d th a t in th e co n te x t of a p rofession a lserv i ce ex cl u s io n w h ere the con tract i s si l en t on i ts m ea n i n g, “ a

‘ pr o fe s s i o nalservi ce ’i nvo l ve s t he a ppl i c at i o n o f s pe c i als ki l l , kno w l e dg e a nd ed u ca ti on arisi n g ou t of a vo ca ti on , call i n g, occu p a ti on or em p l oy m en t. ” B u rt on , 7 3 0 S o . 2 d a t 5

– 6 ; Ti t a n I n d e m. C o . V

. Wi l l i a ms , 7 4 3 S o. 2d 1 0 2 0 , 1 0 2 6 (M i ss. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). A p p ly in g the eigh t- corn ers test, the n , w e look to t h e com p l a i n t t o determ i n e w h et h er t h e condu ctal l eged fal l s w i t h i n t h e “ professi on alser vi ces”N o. 08- 61043

6 exc l usi on o f

t he Pol i c y. As s etf

or t h above , Tranqual i no’ s c om pl ai nt al l ege s t hat B M I ow ed Casi ano “ a dut y . . . t o pe rf or m i t s pro fes si onalr es ponsibi l i t i es as en gi n eers” in a ccordan ce w i t h app ropri ate s t an da rds. E ach speci f i c actof
w r o n g d o in gis co u c h e d a s a b r e a c h o f th o s e re s p o n s ib ilitie s . W e r e c o gni z e t hats o m e o f t he c o nduc t c o m pl ai ne d o f m aynotre qui r e “ t he
a p p l i ca ti on o f sp ecial sk i l l , k n ow l ed ge an d ed u ca ti on . ” T h e com p l a i n t do es n ot, ho w ever , al l ege t hat i tw as i m pro perper f or m ance of

B M I ’ s non- t ec hni c al
a c tiv itie s th a t ca u s e d C a s ia n o ’ s inju r ie s . Cf

. Th erm o T

err ate ch v. G D CE n vi roS ol u t i on s, I

n c. , 265 F

. 3d 3 29, 3 36 ( 5th C i r. 200 1) (f i n di n g a professi on alser vi ces e xc l us i o n i nap pl i c ab l e w he n t he c o nduc t c aus i ng t he a c c i de ntdi d no t r e qui r e t he
e xe r c i s e o f

s pe c i alj udg m en t )

. N o r i s t he r e a ny di s put e t hatBM I ’ s r o l e o n t he p r oje c t w a s th e p r o v is io n o f p r o fe s s io n a l s e r v ic e s . Cf

. Cochran v. B

. J

. S ervi ces Co

. USA , 302 F

. 3d 499 , 507 ( 5th C i r. 200 2) ( f i n di n g cl ai m s n ot excl u ded un der
a pr o f e s s i o nals e r vi c e s pr o vi s i o n wher e , de s pi t e b e i ng i de nt i f i e d as a “ c o ns ul t i ng en gi n eeri n g f

i rm , ” t h e defen da n t w as t h e “ com p a n y m a n ” on the si t e an d n ot h ir e d to “d e s ig n o r a p p r o v e d e s ig n o f a n y p o r tio n o f th e o p e r a tio n ”). Inst ead , t h e com pl ai n tis ex pl i ci t in a t t ribu t i n g t h e a cci den t to a b reach of B M I’ s “pro fessi on a lresp on sibi l i ti es” a s th e “en gin ee ri n g fi rm ” on the si te. It
as se r t s t hat , as t he e ngi neer i ng f i r m , B M I di d an d d i d n otdo c er t ai n t hi ngs; as t he e ngi neer i ng f

i r m , B M I ow ed a pro fes si onal r es ponsibi l i t y t o Casi ano; and, as th e e n g i n e e r i n gf

i r m , i tb r e a c h e d t h a t p r o fe s s i o n a lr e s p o n s i b i l i t y . T h e s e s p e c ific al l e ga t i o ns m ak e i tunl i ke o t he r c as e s w he r e t he r e w as s o m e a m bi gui t y i n t he
c o m p la in t’s a lle g a tio n s . S ee , e.g ., A m . G u a r. & L ia b . In s. C o . v . L eflo re Co u n ty , N o . 4 :05 C V 1 0 9 -M -B , 2 0 0 6 U .S

. D ist. L E X IS 2 3 9 7 5 (N .D

. M iss

. A p r. 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 ). I n t he l i ghto f

t he a l l e ga t i o ns i n Tr anq ual i no ’ s c o m pl ai n t , the o nl y w ayt o f i nd
c o v e r a g e u n d e r th is p o lic y la n g u a g e w o u ld b e t o d e e m t h e e x c lu s io n co m p le te ly
m ean i n gl ess.N o. 08- 61043

Also, to th e e xte nt that BMI has made QBE aware of facts sugge sting th at it properly 4 discharge d it s profe ssional obli gation s—for exa mple, that thecity was ultimatelyrespo nsib le for the trench design—we need notconsider the m. The que stionof wheth er BMI was actually respon sibl e for the trench construction and the failures that caused the coll apse is irrelevant toth e qu es tiono f cover a ge. See Great N. Nekoosa Cor p. v. Aet na Cas. & Su r. C o. , 92 1 F . Supp. 401 , 40 6 (N .D. Miss. 19 96) (“I t is the natureof the claim that is tobecon sidere d an d not its me ritsind et er minin gwh eth eradutyt o de fe n d isc re ate d. ”)

. 7 N o t w it h s t a n d in gth is a n a l y s is , B M I c o n t e n d s th a t M is s is s ip p i’s j u ri sp ru d en ce p erm i tti n g co n sider a ti on o f so-call ed “tru e facts” un d er th e eigh tcorners t estres ol ves t h e professi on alser vi ces qu est i on in it s favor. Tru e fact s, on ce m ad e kn ow n t o t h e i n surer, w il l d e feat t h e app l i cat i on of an excl u si on
w h ere ( 1) t h e t rue fact s, i f est abli shed , present pot en t i all i abil i t y of t h e i n sured fo r th e u n d e r ly in ginju r y , a n d ( 2 ) a c a u s e o f a c tio n b a s e d o n t h e tr u e fa c ts w o u ld b e co v e r e d b y th e p o lic y . Nati on w i d e M u t. In s. C o . v. L ak e Carol i n e, I n c. , 515 F .3 d 4 1 4 , 4 1 8

– 1 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); A cce ptan ce Ins. C o. v. Pow e Tim ber Co. , 4 0 3 F. S u pp . 2d 55 2, 558 –59 ( S

. D

. M i ss. 200 5)

. “ [ I] f t h e u n pl ed ‘ fact s’ w ou l d n otsup port
a [ p oten ti a l ] cl a i m f

or li a b i l i ty a ga i n st t h e insu red , the n k n ow l ed ge of th ese fa cts b y th e i n su rer d oe s n ot g i ve rise to a du ty to d efen d

. ” Po we , 403 F. Supp. 2d at 559. I m por t ant l y, “ an i nsur ed [ c annot ] tri gger t he dut y t o de fend m er el y by d en yin g th e al l eg a ti on s i n the com p l a i n t” u n d er M i ssissi p p i ’ s n a rrow true fa cts
e x c e p tio n . A m . S t ate s I n s. Co. v. Natc h ez S t eam L au n d ry , 1 3 1 F

. 3 d 55 1 , 55 3 ( 5 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). 4 B M I a r g u e s th a tit m a d e Q B E a w a r e o f t h e “t r u e fa c t ” th a t B M I ’s rep rese n tati ve at th e sit e w a s n ot a n en gin ee r a n d , a t th e t i m e of th e a cciden t,
w a s n ot p erform i n g acti viti es t h a t req u i red tech n i ca l ex p ertise or skil l

. In fa ct,
ac c or di ng t o BM I , i t s em pl oye e— w ho had as ked Casi ano t o a ssi sthi m — had

“ o nl y a hi gh s c ho o le duc at i o n” a nd “ w as si m pl y m e as ur i ng pi pe a t t he t i m e o f t he
a c c id e n t” fo r th e p u r p o s e o f d e te r m in in gp a y m e n t. B M I u r g e s th a t fo r th is reason, T ran qu al i n o m ay p revai lagainstB M I on a garden

- vari et y n eg l i gen ce c l ai m t hat i s unrel at ed t o i t s pro vi si on o f pr of es si onals er vi c es , w hi c h w oul d beN o. 08- 61043

N o p artyh as raised or a ddressed wheth er the lack of aduty to defend und er this 5 complaint also negates a duty to indemnifyingene ral. Accordin gly, that i ssue i s no t addressed here

. 8 c o v e r e d b y th e P o lic y . B u t “ m e a s u r in gp ip e ,” w ith o u t m o r e , is n o t n e c e s s a r ily i n con sist en t w i th pr ofession a lserv i ces. N or is si m p l y h a v in g o n e of i ts
em p l oy ee s as k C a sian o to h elp h i m m ea su re p i p e su ff i ci en t t o su b je c t B M I t o potenti all i abil i t y. S i m pl y pu t , B M I’ s t rue factei t h er ( 1) does not t ak e t h e act i on ou t si de of

t h e professi on alser vi ces excl u si on , or ( 2) does n ot “ sup port a cl ai m f or l i abil i t y aga i n st[ i t ] , ” an d, t h u s, “ kn ow l edg e of t h ese fact s by t h e i n surer does not give ri se to a du ty to d efen d

. ” Po we , 403 F. Supp. 2d at559. I I I . C ONC L US I ON I n s um , e ve n s t udi o us l y c o ns t r ui ng t h e P ol i c y i n fav o r o f BM I , t he al l e ga t i o ns i n t he c o m pl ai n t a re pr e c i s e l y t he s o r t o f po t e nt i all i ab i l i t y t he p r o fe s s i o n a l s e r v ic e s e x c lu s io n is d e s ig n e d to e x c is e fr o m c o v e r a g e . B M I ’s at t e m ptt o i nt r o duc e t r ue fac t s t o o ve r c o m e t hi s pr o bl e m i s una va i l i ng. As s uc h, Q BE ha s no du t y t o de fe nd u nde r i t s Po l i c y w i t h BM I i n r e s po ns e t o t he
c om p l a i n t i n q u estion

. A ccord i n gly, th e dist ri ct cou rt’ s j u d g m e n t is 5 AF F I RMED.