Opinion ID: 2977801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Negotiation Evidence

Text: In addition to its argument that the Agreement unambiguously requires UTC to indemnify and defend Liberty Mutual with respect to Elliott’s claims, Liberty Mutual argues in the alternative that the parties’ negotiations support its interpretation of Section 12. As in the district court, Liberty Mutual relies on the affidavits of several Liberty Mutual employees stating that Liberty Mutual 17 would not have agreed to a settlement that failed to provide indemnification for all coverage claims by former subsidiaries. Liberty Mutual also offers drafts of the Agreement to demonstrate that the parties did not negotiate the term “absent this Agreement.” Courts interpreting contracts under Massachusetts law have recognized that extrinsic evidence generally is admissible only when a contract term is ambiguous. Donoghue, 70 F.3d at 215. Because we find that the Agreement is not ambiguous regarding the indemnification obligation of the UTC Companies and that the meaning of Section 12 can be determined by examining the Agreement as a whole, we find that it is unnecessary to examine the extrinsic evidence Liberty Mutual offers in support of its interpretation of the Agreement.