Opinion ID: 1033440
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Your employee if the auto is

Text: owned by that employee or a member of his or her household . . . . The umbrella policy defined auto hazard to mean liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use or 'loading or unloading' of any auto. The policy also stated that: This insurance does not apply to: . . . f. Motor Vehicle Laws and Coverages Motor vehicle no-fault law, first party physical damage coverage, personal injury protection coverage, uninsured motorists or underinsured motorists law; or other laws or coverages similar to any of the foregoing. When Frost demanded payment from Peerless under the business owner's and umbrella policies for injuries and damages that resulted from the May 25, 2007 collision, Peerless refused on the ground that it had no obligation under either policy to pay uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits to Frost with respect to the accident. Peerless then filed a declaratory judgment complaint in federal district court in Maine, invoking the court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2006).1 Frost counterclaimed for judgment in the amount of $1 million against 1 Peerless Indemnity Insurance Co. is organized under the laws of Illinois, and Peerless Insurance Co. is organized under the laws of New Hampshire. Both corporations have their principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. -7- Peerless Indemnity Insurance Co. pursuant to the business owner's policy and another $1 million against Peerless Insurance Co. pursuant to the umbrella policy. After Peerless and Frost filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that the unambiguous language of both Peerless policies excluded coverage for Frost's injuries and damages in the collision. The court entered judgment in favor of Peerless on all claims, and this timely appeal followed.