Opinion ID: 203449
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ambiguity of the Fire Extinguisher Warranty Clause

Text: The district court erroneously held the fire extinguisher warranty clause was ambiguous. [2] Subsection 9 of the policy is entitled General Conditions and Warranties. Subsection 9( l ) of the policy provides: If the scheduled vessel is fitted with fire extinguishing equipment, then it is warranted that such equipment is properly installed and is maintained in good working order. This includes the weighing of tanks once a year and recharging as necessary. This clause follows after subsection 9(k), which provides: It is warranted that covered persons must at all times comply with relevant Statutes, Laws, by-laws and U.S. Coast Guard and other regulations, governing the use of the scheduled vessel. It is clear that subsection 9( l ) is a warranty provision. The clause plainly states that it is a warranty and it is located in the section of the policy where warranties are set forth. The contract interpretation question of whether there is an ambiguity in the warranty clause is one for the court. See Littlefield, 392 F.3d at 6 (Whether there is any ambiguity in [provisions of a maritime insurance contract] is a question of law for the court to determine.); see also Tropeano v. Dorman, 441 F.3d 69, 75 (1st Cir.2006) (The question of whether a contract is ambiguous is one for the courts.); 2 L.R. Russ & T.F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance § 21:13 (3d ed. 2008) (Whether or not a contract of insurance is ambiguous is a question of law for the court. . . .). It is a question we review de novo. Littlefield, 392 F.3d at 6; Crowe v. Bolduc, 365 F.3d 86, 95 (1st Cir.2004). There is no ambiguity in the warranty clause at issue here. The first sentence of subsection 9( l ) is a warranty from the insured that if the vessel is fitted with fire extinguishing equipment, as the vessel here was, such equipment is properly installed and maintained in good working order. The second sentence provides the further definition that such proper installation and maintenance includes the weighing of tanks once a year and recharging as necessary. This is a promissory warranty on the part of the insured. See 6 Couch on Insurance, supra, § 81:14 (promissory warranty is one by which the insured stipulates that something shall be done or omitted after the policy takes effect and during its continuance); see also Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Flagship Marine Servs., Inc., 190 F.3d 26, 31 (2d Cir.1999) (defining warranty as a promise `by which the assured undertakes that some particular thing shall or shall not be done, or that some condition shall be fulfilled' (quoting L.J. Buglass, Marine Insurance & General Average in the United States 27 (2d ed.1981))). The date that the parties entered into the insurance contract does not matter. The insured warrants upon entering into the policy that the tanks have been weighed once a year and, if necessary, recharged, as part of the insured's warranty of proper maintenance of fire extinguishing equipment. That this is a clear obligation is reinforced by the introductory clause in the contract that states: We will provide the insurance coverage described in this insuring agreement, in return for payment to us of the premium due and compliance by covered persons with the provisions, conditions and warranties of this insuring agreement.  (Emphasis added.) Since the warranty is clear and unambiguous, it must be enforced as written under usual insurance law. See 2 Couch on Insurance, supra, § 21:11 ([I]t is a well settled rule . . . that clear and unambiguous clauses must be accepted as the expression of the intent of the parties, and enforced by the courts as written.). It is also undisputed that the insured failed to produce any evidence of compliance with the promissory warranty relating to the fire extinguishers. Thus, the insured was in breach of the promissory warranty.