Court Opinion

ID: 9905475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 17:01:18.533188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:41.527071
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-3275     Document: 010110960226     Date Filed: 11/29/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                         PUBLISH                             Tenth Circuit

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     November 29, 2023

                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         Clerk of Court
                          _________________________________

  TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                        No. 22-3275

  ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
  COMPANY; WESTAR ENERGY, INC.;
  ENDURANCE AMERICAN
  INSURANCE COMPANY;
  WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE
  COMPANY,

        Defendants - Appellees,

  and

  KELLI MOST, individually and as
  personal representative of the estate of
  Jesse Henson; CECILIA HENSON;
  DORIAN HENSON,

        Defendants.
                          _________________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                               for the District of Kansas
                           (D.C. No. 2:19-CV-02710-HLT)
                        _________________________________

 Nolan C. Knight, Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C., Dallas, Texas for Appellant.

 Meredith A. Webster (joined by Larry D. Fields on the brief), Kutak Rock LLP, Kansas
 City, Missouri for Appellee Zurich American Insurance Company.
Appellate Case: 22-3275    Document: 010110960226         Date Filed: 11/29/2023     Page: 2

 John T. Bullock (joined by J. Eric Weslander and Kate M. Simpson on the briefs), Stevens
 & Brand LLP, Lawrence, Kansas for Appellee Westar Energy, Inc.

 Kevin Brooks, Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice L.L.C., Kansas City, Missouri, Manuel
 Mungia and Chad Schreiber, Chasnoff, Mungia, Valkenaar Pepping & Stribling, LLP, San
 Antonio, Texas, and Sarah R. Smith, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Houston,
 Texas, on the brief, for Appellee Westchester Fire Insurance Company.

 Brandon A. Howerton and Andrew D. Herold, Herold & Sager, Encinitas, California, on
 the brief, for Appellee Endurance American Insurance Company.
                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, MORITZ, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

 HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
                          _________________________________

       Plaintiff Team Industrial Services, Inc. (Team) suffered a $222 million

 judgment against it in a wrongful-death lawsuit arising out of a steam-turbine failure

 in June 2018 at a Westar Energy, Inc. (Westar) power plant. Team seeks coverage for

 this liability from Westar, Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), and two

 other insurance companies, arguing that it was, or should have been, provided

 protection by Westar’s Owner-Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) through

 insurance policies issued by Zurich and the two other insurers.1 Team’s claims derive

 from the fact that its liability for the failure at the Westar power plant arose from

 work that had previously been performed by Furmanite America, Inc. (Furmanite),

       1
          Zurich issued the primary liability policy, with Westchester Fire Insurance
 Company and Endurance American Insurance Company providing two layers of
 excess coverage. The excess-coverage policies “‘followed form’ to the Zurich Policy,
 meaning those policies were generally governed by the terms of the Zurich Policy,”
 and the parties agree that the excess carriers need not be treated separately. Aplee.
 Br. at 4; see Aplt. Br. at 37–38.
                                             2
Appellate Case: 22-3275     Document: 010110960226        Date Filed: 11/29/2023      Page: 3

 which did have coverage under Westar’s OCIP. The United States District Court for

 the District of Kansas granted summary judgment to Defendants, and Team appeals.

 Although Team vigorously presents its arguments for reversal, we are not persuaded.

 Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

        I.     BACKGROUND

        The relevant facts are not disputed. In 2010 Westar entered into separate

 Master Services Agreements (MSAs) with Furmanite and Team to perform work at

 the Westar power plant and other sites. Team was to perform “pre-heat and stress

 relieving” services and Furmanite was to perform “valve maintenance” services.

 Team Indus. Servs., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. (Team Indus. Servs.), No. 2:19-CV-

 02710-HLT, 2022 WL 16961237, at *2 (D. Kan. Nov. 16, 2022). Both MSAs state

 that Furmanite and Team are independent contractors required to procure their own

 liability insurance and to name Westar as an additional insured on the policies. They

 both also state that “Contractor shall not assign or transfer any of its rights or

 obligations . . . under this Contract without previous written consent of [Westar]

 which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld.” Aplt. App., Vol. 3 at 75, 174.

        In 2013 Westar instituted its OCIP, through which contractors and

 subcontractors could obtain insurance protection for work performed at covered

 locations. Westar had discretion to decide which contractors would be eligible to

 enroll in the OCIP. Eligible contractors had to complete enrollment forms to be

 considered for participation. During the time relevant to this dispute, insurance was

 provided by a Zurich policy, whose premiums were paid by Westar. According to

                                             3
Appellate Case: 22-3275    Document: 010110960226       Date Filed: 11/29/2023     Page: 4

 Zurich’s policy, an enrolled contractor’s “rights and duties under this policy may not

 be transferred without [Zurich’s] written consent.” Aplt. App., Vol. 15 at 5.

       With permission from Westar, Furmanite submitted an application seeking

 enrollment in the OCIP and was enrolled in 2013. Furmanite then obtained login

 credentials to an online portal operated by Westar’s insurance broker, Aon Risk

 Services Southwest, Inc. (Aon), where Furmanite was required to report payroll hours

 for each month. The payroll hours reported to Aon were used by Zurich to calculate

 the premium to be paid by Westar for the relevant policy period. Westar never made

 Team eligible to enroll in the OCIP, Team never submitted an enrollment application,

 and it was never enrolled.

       In February 2016 Team’s parent company acquired Furmanite’s parent

 company. Although Team and Furmanite became “sister companies,” they were

 distinct legal entities and never merged. In September 2017 Team and Westar

 executed Change Order No. 2 to the Team Contract, which, as discussed more fully

 below, consolidated the MSAs of Furmanite and Team, retiring the Furmanite MSA

 and providing that purchase orders that had been issued to Furmanite would be

 reissued to Team. After the execution of that change order, Team assumed

 Furmanite’s workload at the power plant. Furmanite’s insurance coverage under the

 Westar OCIP continued even though its service contract had been retired. See Team

 Indus. Servs., 2022 WL 16961237, at *3 (“Westar may have submitted a 2018

 re-enrollment on Furmanite’s behalf. . . . The bottom line is Furmanite’s coverage

 continued, even after it perhaps should have ended.”). A Team employee used

                                            4
Appellate Case: 22-3275    Document: 010110960226        Date Filed: 11/29/2023     Page: 5

 Furmanite’s login credentials to upload payroll hours to the Aon payroll portal, and,

 for a number of months beginning in June 2017, 0 hours and 0 payroll were logged in

 by a Team employee in Furmanite’s name for every month except April 2018. The

 parties stipulated that the hours Team logged in under Furmanite’s name for April

 2018 were for work by Team unrelated to the June 2018 accident.

       In the proceedings below, Team argued that it inherited Furmanite’s coverage

 under the OCIP via Change Order No. 2 and was therefore insured for the work it

 performed at the power plant. In the alternative, Team requested that the court reform

 the Zurich policy to list Team as an insured instead of Furmanite or enforce an

 insurance agreement through the doctrine of promissory estoppel against Westar and

 Zurich. Team also argued that Westar breached a fiduciary duty by failing to provide

 OCIP coverage for Team. Westar and Zurich moved for summary judgment, and the

 district court granted both motions. See Team Indus. Servs., 2022 WL 16961237,

 at *1. It ruled that Change Order No. 2 unambiguously retired Furmanite’s MSA and

 left Team’s MSA as the sole governing document. The court declined to reform the

 Zurich policy and rejected the promissory-estoppel, breach-of-contract, and breach-

 of-fiduciary-duty claims. We affirm.2

       2
         Team also appeals the denial of its request for a declaratory judgment. Our
 rejection of its appeal on the other causes of action also disposes of the request for
 declaratory judgment, which is predicated on the same claims.
                                            5
Appellate Case: 22-3275    Document: 010110960226        Date Filed: 11/29/2023        Page: 6

       II.    DISCUSSION

       We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, applying the same legal

 standards that are to be used by the district court. See Merrifield v. Bd. Of Cnty.

 Comm’rs, 654 F.3d 1073, 1077 (10th Cir. 2011). A grant of summary judgment is

 appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material

 fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

 On review, “[w]e examine the record and all reasonable inferences that might be

 drawn from it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Merrifield,

 654 F.3d at 1077 (internal quotation marks omitted). The parties do not dispute the

 district court’s determination that Kansas law governs the substantive issues we

 address on appeal. We start with the claims that Zurich breached a contractual

 obligation to insure Team and that Westar breached a contractual obligation to

 continue Furmanite’s OCIP coverage for the benefit of Team.

       “The primary rule for interpreting written contracts is to ascertain the parties’

 intent.” Osterhaus v. Toth, 249 P.3d 888, 896 (Kan. 2011). “If the terms of the

 contract are clear, the intent of the parties is to be determined from the language of

 the contract without applying rules of construction.” Id. Whether the contractual

 language is ambiguous is a matter of law for courts to decide. See Waste Connections

 of Kan., Inc. v. Ritchie Corp., 298 P.3d 250, 265 (Kan. 2013).

       Team contends that the amendment to Team’s MSA by Change Order No. 2

 unambiguously entitles it to Furmanite’s insurance coverage. We cannot agree.

                                             6
Appellate Case: 22-3275   Document: 010110960226        Date Filed: 11/29/2023    Page: 7

       To begin with, enrollment in Westar’s OCIP does not happen automatically.

 Westar alone designates which contractors are eligible, and eligible contractors must

 apply to enroll in the program, and then be accepted by Westar, in order to receive

 coverage. Also, under the express terms of the Zurich insurance policy, coverage

 cannot be transferred without Zurich’s consent. Yet Team never enrolled, or was

 even invited to enroll, in Westar’s OCIP. Nor did Zurich ever give written approval

 to a transfer of coverage from Furmanite to Team. The failure to satisfy these

 requirements would appear to be dispositive of Team’s breach-of-contract claims.

       Team argues, however, that these failures were cured by Change Order No. 2,

 which states:

       Note: On February 29, 2016 Furmanite was acquired by TEAM
       Industrial Services, Inc. This change order will consolidate the two
       services contracts that Furmanite (902236) [Furmanite MSA] and
       TEAM (902228) [Team MSA] hold with Westar Energy and
       become effective as of September 1, 2017.

       Furmanite Contract 902236 will be retired and all pending PO’s
       [purchase orders] under the previous FURMANITE supplier ID
       0000533098 will be reissued under TEAM INDUSTRIAL
       SERVICES, INC., supplier ID 0000431446 to be governed by the
       terms & conditions of Contract 902228 [Team MSA].

 Aplt. App., Vol. 2 at 294. The argument is creative, but unpersuasive.

       The Change Order contains nary a mention of insurance coverage or the OCIP.

 There is no ambiguity in the language of the change order from which one could infer

 that Team would thereafter be provided insurance coverage through the Westar OCIP

 or otherwise.

                                           7
Appellate Case: 22-3275    Document: 010110960226        Date Filed: 11/29/2023     Page: 8

       Team nevertheless insists that all is resolved by the word consolidate in the

 first paragraph of the change order. It contends that consolidation of the Furmanite

 and Team service contracts necessarily results in coverage for Team by the insurance

 already provided to Furmanite. There are at least two fatal flaws in this argument.

       First, neither of the consolidated MSAs provides insurance coverage. Both

 unambiguously state that contractors must procure and maintain their own liability

 insurance. At most, the Furmanite MSA, as amended by what the parties referred to

 as “Change Order No. 1” (which we quote later in this discussion) notes the possible

 creation of the OCIP, but that change order does not even grant permission to

 Furmanite to seek enrollment in the OCIP, much less provide coverage. Thus, even if

 Team had been assigned the Furmanite MSA, it would not thereby obtain any

 insurance coverage.

       Second, Change Order No. 2 rendered the Furmanite MSA a nullity. It

 explicitly states that the Furmanite service contract is “retired.” Team contends that

 this unambiguous declaration in the change order cannot mean what it says because

 such a construction would contradict the consolidate language earlier in the change

 order. We disagree. We begin with the definition of consolidate adopted by the

 district court and endorsed by both parties. The court said: “The ordinary meaning of

 ‘consolidate’ is ‘to join together into one whole: unite.’ Merriam-Webster.com

 Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consolidate . . . Black’s

 Law Dictionary defines consolidate as ‘To combine or unify (separate items) into one

 mass or body, esp. in order to make them more effective or easier to deal with.’

                                            8
Appellate Case: 22-3275    Document: 010110960226        Date Filed: 11/29/2023       Page: 9

 Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).” Team Indus. Servs., 2022 WL 16961237,

 at *7. The thrust of Team’s argument is that if the two service contracts are to be

 made “into one whole,” then the resulting whole must include the insurance coverage

 that had been provided to Furmanite (even though, as just discussed above, that

 coverage was not provided in the Furmanite MSA). But Team does not explain why

 the resulting whole must adopt a provision in one service contract that does not

 appear in the other. The short of the matter is that there are a number of ways in

 which the two service contracts could be consolidated so that the parties end up with

 a single contract. That is why the change order includes a second paragraph, which

 sets forth how the consolidation should be accomplished—by, among other things,

 retiring Furmanite’s service contract. One cannot infer from Change Order No. 2 that

 Team was to be protected by insurance coverage previously held by Furmanite.

       Team also appears to argue that it was, or should have been, covered by the

 OCIP because of (1) language in Change Order No. 1 to the MSA between Westar

 and Furmanite requiring Westar to maintain coverage for contractors participating in

 the OCIP and (2) language in the OCIP documents requiring Westar to give notice if

 coverage is being discontinued. Again, we are not persuaded.

       Change Order No. 1 states: “[Westar], at its sole option and cost, reserves the

 right to implement an Owner[] Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP), and, except as

 otherwise provided herein, maintain at all times during the performance of this

 Contract, the insurance specified in Attachment 4, Owner Controlled Insurance

 Program Requirements.” Aplt. App., Vol. 2 at 293. According to Team, since

                                            9
Appellate Case: 22-3275     Document: 010110960226         Date Filed: 11/29/2023     Page: 10

  Furmanite’s work for Westar was insured under the OCIP and that work was then

  continued by Team, Westar was required to maintain coverage for that work.

         This argument fails on at least two grounds. First, the Change Order does not

  require Westar to do anything. It says that Westar “at its sole option and cost,

  reserves the right to” implement an OCIP and maintain it during the contract. Id.

  Second, the insurance policy was issued for contractors, not work. Coverage under

  the OCIP and the Zurich policy was for work conducted by a particular insured

  contractor. It made a difference who was doing the work. No contractor could

  participate in the OCIP unless Westar authorized the company to submit an

  application for enrollment and Westar approved the application. The MSAs stated

  that no rights or duties under the contract could be transferred by the contractor

  without Westar’s approval. See Aplt. App., Vol. 3 at 75, 174 (“Contractor shall not

  assign or transfer any of its rights or obligations . . . under this Contract without

  previous written consent of [Westar] which consent shall not unreasonably be

  withheld.”). And the Zurich policy said that rights under the policy could not be

  transferred without Zurich’s permission.3 Further, Team does not explain how

  coverage would be implemented. Team had been performing, and would continue to

         3
           As Appellees point out in their brief, the absence of Zurich’s written consent
  was an independent basis for the district court’s rejection of the breach-of-contract
  claims. See Team Indus. Servs., 2022 WL 16961237, at *9, *11. But Team does not
  address that basis on appeal and therefore waived any challenge to those rulings. See
  Rivero v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of New Mexico, 950 F.3d 754, 763 (10th Cir. 2020)
  (“If the district court states multiple alternative grounds for its ruling and the
  appellant does not challenge all those grounds in the opening brief, then we may
  affirm the ruling.”).
                                              10
Appellate Case: 22-3275    Document: 010110960226        Date Filed: 11/29/2023       Page: 11

  perform, a good deal of work that had never been performed by Furmanite. Now that

  Team would be participating in the OCIP, would all its work be covered by the

  Zurich policy or just the work previously performed by Furmanite? Such potential

  complications are one reason why coverage would be contractor specific and not

  based solely on the work performed. Change Order No.1 gave Team no right to

  assume the insurance coverage provided to Furmanite.

        As for the OCIP, the language in the program documents relied on by Team is:

  “In the event [Westar], for any reason, is unable to furnish or after commencement of

  Work or Services elects not to furnish or to continue to furnish the insurance as

  specified . . . and upon 30 days written notice from [Westar] the following shall be

  required.” Aplt. App., Vol. 4 at 46. The document proceeds to state that those

  previously enrolled in the OCIP must obtain replacement insurance before the OCIP

  coverage terminates, with Westar covering the cost of additional premiums. We think

  it clear that the notice is to go only to contractors already covered by the OCIP, not

  contractors—like Team—who are not enrolled in the program.

        In sum, no contractual promise by Westar or Zurich entitled Team to coverage

  under the OCIP. The district court properly rejected Team’s claims for breach of

  contract.

        Team’s remaining claims can be readily disposed of. First, it seeks reformation

  of Westar’s OCIP insurance policy with Zurich, claiming that it was an error by

  Westar “that le[]d Zurich to issue coverage in the name of [Furmanite rather than

  Team].” Aplt. Br. at 53. “Reformation is that remedy by means of which a written

                                             11
Appellate Case: 22-3275     Document: 010110960226         Date Filed: 11/29/2023     Page: 12

  instrument is made or construed to express or conform to the real intention of the

  parties, when some error or mistake has been committed.” Liggatt v. Emps. Mut. Cas.

  Co., 46 P.3d 1120, 1128 (Kan. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). The law of

  reformation recognizes that “written contracts do not always accurately reflect the

  parties’ antecedent agreement,” and is available only in instances of “mutual mistake

  or fraud.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]hen a court determines an

  instrument does not reflect the terms intended by the parties to it, the court then

  revises the terms written in the instrument to reflect the intent of the parties.” Id.

  (cleaned up). Since Zurich was necessarily one of the parties to the insurance

  contract, reformation would require proof that Zurich intended to insure Team. But

  Team provides no argument, much less evidence, that Zurich intended to name Team

  as an insured. In any event, the Zurich policy explicitly protects Zurich from such

  claims by requiring any transfer of coverage to be approved by Zurich in writing.

  Aplt. App., Vol. 15 at 5 (“Your rights and duties under this policy may not be

  transferred without [Zurich’s] written consent.”). Even if Westar made a mistake with

  respect to Team’s coverage under the Zurich policy, reformation requires mistakes by

  both parties to the contract.

         Team also contends that Westar breached a fiduciary duty imposed by the

  OCIP to ensure that Team was covered by the OCIP or at least provide notice to

  Team if it was not to be covered for the work that had been performed by Furmanite.

  But even if we assume that this duty imposed on Westar was a fiduciary duty, it was

  not, as we explained above, a duty owed to Team because Team had never been

                                              12
Appellate Case: 22-3275    Document: 010110960226        Date Filed: 11/29/2023    Page: 13

  covered under the OCIP. It would have been a duty owed only to Furmanite. And

  because we have already rejected the argument that Team inherited Furmanite’s

  OCIP coverage, we also reject the argument that any fiduciary duty owed by Westar

  to Furmanite under the OCIP was automatically transferred to Team upon its

  assumption of Furmanite’s work duties.

        Finally, Team raises a perfunctory claim of promissory estoppel. Such a claim

  may arise if “(1) [t]he promisor reasonably expected the promisee to act in reliance

  on the promise, (2) the promisee acted as could reasonably be expected in relying on

  the promise, and (3) a refusal of the court to enforce the promise would sanction the

  perpetration of fraud or result in other injustice.” Mohr v. State Bank of Stanley, 770

  P.2d 466, 481 (Kan. 1989). As best we can tell, Team is asserting that Westar is

  estopped from denying that it was to provide coverage for Team under the OCIP

  because of promises made to Team. First, Team incorporates its previous arguments

  that Change Order No. 2 constituted a promise to cover Team under the OCIP. We

  need not repeat why we reject that argument. Second, Team points to its reporting of

  payroll data through the Aon portal after Team had taken over the work previously

  performed by Furmanite. But there is no allegation that Westar knew about this

  reporting, so it could hardly have expected to induce Team’s reliance. Nor was there

  any evidence of a promise by Zurich to provide insurance coverage to Team.4

        4
           Because we rule in favor of Appellees on other grounds, we need not address
  their collateral-estoppel argument based on the judgment in the wrongful-death
  lawsuit.
                                             13
Appellate Case: 22-3275   Document: 010110960226    Date Filed: 11/29/2023   Page: 14

        III.   CONCLUSION

        We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

                                        14