Opinion ID: 4561707
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Evanston issued OPF two professional liability insurance policies. The first (“2016 Policy”) ran from March 20, 2016, until March 20, 2017, and the second (“2017 Policy,” and together with the 2016 Policy, “the Policies”) ran from March 20, 2017, until March 20, 2018. The Policies contained identical language covering general and professional liability insurance for claims made against OPF during the policy periods. The Policies included a “Discovery Clause,” which provided coverage for claims made against OPF after the end date of the policy period if OPF provided written notice to Evanston during the policy period. More specifically, this clause stated that [i]f during the Policy Period, [OPF] first becomes aware of a specific Wrongful Act, Personal Injury or offense which is reasonably expected to result in a Claim within the scope of coverage of this Coverage Part, then [OPF] may provide written notice as stated in Item 11 . . . . If such written notice is received by the Company1 during the Policy Period, then any Claim subsequently made against [OPF] shall be deemed . . . to have been first made on the date on which such written notice is received by the Company. Item 11 provided an email address, physical address, and fax number where notice could be sent. In January 2017, OPF purchased five million pounds of ceramic proppant—a solid material used in oil extraction operations—and resold the proppant to Apache Corporation. In February 2017, during the coverage period of the 2016 Policy, Apache notified OPF that some of Apache’s equipment sustained damage from material found in OPF’s proppant. 1 In the Policies, “the Company” refers to Markel Corporation, which owns Evanston and underwrites its policies. 2 Case: 20-20095 Document: 00515546710 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/31/2020 No. 20-20095 On March 1, 2017, OPF provided written notice of the potential claim to its insurance agent, Porter Insurance Agency, Inc. Shortly after, on March 3, 2017, Porter notified AmWINS Brokerage of Texas, LLC of the incident stating, “This is for your information only at this time, since there is no claim demand made against [OPF].” AmWINS did not forward this message to Evanston. AmWINS had authority to complete a number of insurance brokerage tasks on Evanston’s behalf. AmWINS could “receive and accept proposals for insurance”; “effect, issue, countersign and deliver [insurance] policies”; “collect, receive and give receipts for premiums”; and “cancel or non-renew [insurance] policies.” Notably, the Producer Agreement required AmWINS to “immediately notify [Evanston] of all claims, suits, and notices.” In April 2017, during the coverage period of the 2017 Policy, Apache demanded that OPF pay approximately $1.5 million in damages caused by the contaminated proppant. OPF gave the demand letter to Porter, which then forwarded it to AmWINS, which in turn forwarded it to Evanston. Evanston received the demand letter on April 7, 2017. Evanston filed suit against OPF, alleging that it had no duty to defend or indemnify OPF for the damage caused by the contaminated proppant because the claim was not covered by either of the Policies. After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment in OPF’s favor. Evanston timely appealed.