Opinion ID: 152248
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Underground Equipment Limitation

Text: Mid-Continent argues that the CGL Policy's Underground Equipment Limitation removes from coverage the repair costs at issue, which were incurred to remove a stuck drill pipe. Appellees assert that Mid-Continent waived this argument. Mid-Continent rebuts Appellees' assertion by stating that it raised this argument in its complaint and in its summary judgment motions. The fact that Mid-Continent raised this argument in its complaint will not save it from waiver if it failed to present this argument in its summary judgment motions. Grenier v. Cyanamid Plastics, Inc., 70 F.3d 667, 678 (1st Cir.1995) (Even an issue raised in the complaint but ignored at summary judgment may be deemed waived.). In its motions, Mid-Continent did cite the Underground Equipment Limitation, but it only argued that the limitation removed from coverage property damage to `any casing, pipe, bit or tool . . . or other drilling. . . equipment.' Mid-Continent did not argue that the limitation applied to removal of a drill pipe. Because Mid-Continent failed to raise its removal argument in the district court, the argument is waived. See id. ; see also See Martco Ltd. P'ship v. Wellons, Inc., 588 F.3d 864, 877 (5th Cir.2009) ([A]rguments not raised before the district court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.).