Opinion ID: 164336
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Am-Re's Parol Evidence

Text: 32 The district court, after it found the Am-Re reinsurance policy ambiguous, turned to parol evidence to discern the intent of the contracting parties. Fowler, 15 P.3d at 507 (courts may admit parol evidence after finding an ambiguity); Glass, 959 P.2d at 594-95 (court may consider parol evidence on motion for summary judgment). The district court held that Am-Re ha[d] submitted uncontroverted evidence that the parties' intent in negotiating and executing the reinsurance agreements was for AM-RE to provide limited prior acts reinsurance on a claims made basis for losses reported/made to ACCO-SIG ... [during] the term of the agreements. We find no error in the district court's analysis. 33 The record is replete with evidence such as the following August 24, 1999, affidavit of Dusty Birdsong, ACCO-SIG's current litigation coordinator and the former Senior Claims Adjustor for ACCO-SIG's plan administrator. Mr. Birdsong averred: 34 It was the intent of ACCO-SIG ... that the retroactive coverage provided under the ACCO-SIG Liability Protection Plan and Am Re specific policy requires that although a loss might have occurred prior to July 1, 1997 (but no sooner than July 1, 1993), coverage would be provided for that loss as long as the claim is first made against ... ACCO-SIG after July 1, 1997.... [A]pplying NAICO's logic and reasoning, member counties would be paying a one-year premium for a policy period that extended from July 1, 1993, to July 1, 1998. Needless to say, the premium for such coverage would be astronomical and cost prohibitive. Obviously, this was never the intent of ACCO-SIG or Am Re[.] 35 Am-Re also presented evidence to the district court that it had a similar intent upon entering into the policy agreement. For example, Gary E. Eberling, an assistant vice president for Am-Re, in an October 13, 1998, letter to an ACCO-SIG representative wrote, [T]he intent of our coverage was to provide occurrence based coverage, as well as, tail coverage for the claims made coverage provided by NAICO. 36 The district court held, and we agree, that NAICO did not present any contradictory evidence. In its briefing on appeal, NAICO does not point to specific facts in the record contradicting Am-Re's evidence. Although we are not obligated to comb through the record to locate material not referenced by parties, see Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 672 (10th Cir.1998), we conducted an independent review and failed to uncover any evidence contradicting that provided by Am-Re. 37 Instead of presenting contradictory evidence, NAICO attempted to cast doubt upon the credibility of some of Am-Re's evidence. Standing alone, attacks on the credibility of evidence offered by a summary judgment movant do not warrant denial of a summary judgment motion. Jenkins, 81 F.3d at 990 (requiring the nonmoving party to present specific facts demonstrating the existence of a material fact to be tried). Moreover, on a motion for summary judgment we cannot evaluate credibility nor can we weigh evidence. Cone v. Longmont United Hosp. Ass'n, 14 F.3d 526, 533 (10th Cir.1994). The district court, therefore, when evaluating a motion for summary judgment, should not determine whether it believes the movant's evidence; rather, it must determine whether the nonmovant offered any specific facts that demonstrate the existence of a material fact to be tried. NAICO failed to provide any evidence on this score. Thus, we, like the district court, find the parol evidence uncontested that ACCO-SIG and Am-Re sought to contract for occurrence-based coverage from July 1, 1997, to July 1, 1999, with retroactive tail coverage.