United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1991

___________________________

Topp's Mechanical, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Kinsale Insurance Company, an Arkansas Insurance Corporation

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

 ____________

 Submitted: May 12, 2020

Filed: August 4, 2020

____________

Before COLLOTON and BENTON, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS,1 District Judge.

__________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

1

 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
Topp’s Mechanical, Inc. (TMI) bought a liability insurance policy from Kinsale

Insurance Company. The policy excluded a “pollution incident” unless properly

reported by TMI. After a pollution incident, Kinsale disclaimed coverage. TMI sued

for breach of the policy. The district court2 granted Kinsale’s motion to dismiss. 

Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

TMI, a Nebraska corporation, sued Kinsale, an Arkansas corporation, for

breach of the policy, an indemnity policy. The policy had an “Exclusion - Absolute

Pollution and Pollution Related Liability.” This pollution exclusion excluded

coverage for “injury or damage arising directly or indirectly out of, related to, or, in

any way involving” pollution incidents. An exception to the pollution

exclusion—“Time Element Pollution Endorsement”—“modifies coverage under the

Policy” if a pollution incident was: (1) “discovered by [TMI] within [7 days]” and

(2) “reported to [Kinsale] in writing within [45 days].”

During the coverage period, TMI learned that an employee suffered injury from

a pollution incident. Within seven days, a TMI representative called Kinsale about

the incident, specifically asking if TMI should report it. Some unidentified person

in the Kinsale claims department told TMI that it could not yet report the incident as

a claim, and said it should wait until the employee filed a formal demand or lawsuit. 

Nearly 18 months later, the injured employee made a formal demand. TMI

forwarded it to Kinsale, requesting indemnification. Six weeks later, Kinsale

disclaimed coverage. TMI sued Kinsale for breach of contract. After Kinsale

removed the case from state court, the district court granted its motion to dismiss.

2

 The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

-2-
This court reviews de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state

a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), drawing all reasonable

inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Gregory v. Dillard’s, Inc., 565 F.3d

464, 474 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The parties agree Nebraska substantive law

applies in this diversity case. See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938).

TMI acknowledges it did not follow the plain language of the contract because

it reported the incident “in writing” more than 45 days afterward. Instead, it invokes

waiver and estoppel because Kinsale told it to withhold reporting a claim until a

formal demand was made or a lawsuit filed. See D&S Realty, Inc. v. Markel Ins.

Co., 789 N.W.2d 1, 17 (Neb. 2010) (explaining that, although waiver and estoppel are

distinct legal concepts, an insurer can be estopped if it waives a policy provision).

Waiver and estoppel do not apply to the type of policy at issue. There is a

“crucial difference between ‘occurrence’ and ‘claims made’ liability insurance

policies.” Lexington v. Saint Louis Univ., 88 F.3d 632, 633 (8th Cir. 1996), later

cited in Countryside Coop. v. Koch, 790 N.W.2d 873, 886 (Neb. 2010) (describing

an “essential difference” between an occurrence policy and a claims-made policy). 

“Both types of policies require the insured to promptly notify the insurer of possible

covered losses. With a claims made policy, however, that notice is not simply part

of the insured’s duty to cooperate. It defines the limits of the insurer’s obligation—if

there is no timely notice, there is no coverage.” Lexington, 88 F.3d at 634, later

quoted in Countryside Coop., 790 N.W.2d at 886. “Under a claims-made policy, ‘the

very description of the risk covered includes the requirement that claims be both

made and reported within the policy period.’” Countryside Coop., 790 N.W.2d at

886, quoting Esmailzadeh v. Speakman, 869 F.2d 422, 425 (8th Cir. 1989). 

TMI and Kinsale agreed to a claims made policy. It excludes pollution

incidents. But it “modifies coverage” under the Time Element Pollution

Endorsement, for incidents discovered within 7 days and reported within 45 days in

-3-
writing. In the policy, notice “defines the limit of the insurer’s obligation—if there

is no timely notice, there is no coverage” for pollution incidents. Lexington, 88 F.3d

at 634. See Countryside Coop., 790 N.W.2d at 886 (“the very description of the risk

covered includes the requirement that claims be both made and reported within the

policy period”).

Because the Nebraska Supreme Court has not specifically ruled whether waiver

and estoppel apply to claims made policies, this court “must try to predict how [it]

would do so and decide the case accordingly.” Lindhold v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,

862 F.3d 648, 651 (8th Cir. 2017). The Nebraska Supreme Court says that “waiver

and estoppel are not available to broaden the coverage of a policy so as to protect the

insured against risks not included therein or expressly excluded therefrom.” Design

Data Corp. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 503 N.W.2d 552, 559 (Neb. 1993), quoting Lee

v. Evergreen Coop., 390 N.W.2d 183, 185-86 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “Estoppel

cannot be invoked to expand insurance coverage or the scope of an insurance

contract.” Id. at 560, quoting ABCD Vision, Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 744

P.2d 998, 1001-02 (Ore. 1987). TMI cannot invoke waiver and estoppel that

broadens—or as the policy here states, “modifies”—coverage.

A Fifth Circuit case applying Texas law is instructive. There, the policy had

a pollution exclusion clause, but contained an endorsement that covered pollution

incidents if discovered within 7 days and reported to the insurer within 30 days. See

Matador Petro. Co. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 174 F.3d 653, 655-56 (5th

Cir. 1999). The insured reported a pollution incident late, but alleged waiver and

estoppel. Id. The court did not permit waiver and estoppel for two reasons. First,

the policy, because of the endorsement, was a claims made policy. Id. at 659. 

Second, Texas law stated: “waiver and estoppel cannot enlarge the risks covered by

a policy and cannot be used to create a new and different contract with respect to the

risk covered and the insurance extended.” Id. at 660, citing The Minnesota Mut. Life

Ins. Co. v. Morse, 487 S.W.2d 317, 320 (Tex. 1972). Compare Design Data, 503

-4-
N.W.2d at 560 (“Estoppel cannot be invoked to expand insurance coverage or the

scope of an insurance contract.”). 

TMI contends that Nebraska law permits waiver and estoppel for breach-ofcontract of insurance policies. But TMI relies on cases with occurrence policies, not

claims made policies. In Keene, the insurance policy covered the fire, and the insurer

had told the insured not to worry about reporting it until he received the bill. See

Keene Coop. Grain & Supply Co. v. Farmers Union Ind. Mut. Ins. Co., 128 N.W.2d

773, 777 (Neb. 1964). Likewise, in Morris, the insurance policy covered the fire, and

the parties contested whether the insurer’s participation in negotiations constituted

waiver. See Morris v. American & Foreign Ins. Co., 35 N.W.2d 832, 833-35 (Neb.

1949). In both cases, the policies were occurrence policies because they already

covered the risks—e.g., the fires. The insureds had a duty to provide notice, but

notice did not determine coverage. See Lexington, 88 F.3d at 634; Countryside

Coop., 790 N.W.2d at 886. See also D&S Realty, 789 N.W.2d at 6, 17-18 (insurance

covered water damage, and parties contested whether insured waived a disclaimer

clause for buildings that sat vacant). 

In this case, on the other hand, timely notice “modifies coverage” to include

pollution incidents, so it is a claims made policy. TMI, therefore, cannot invoke

waiver and estoppel.

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-5-