Court Opinion

ID: 2962809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:02:15.689924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:43.077899
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 93-2230

                          MAINE DRILLING AND BLASTING, INC.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                     INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Breyer,* Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                            and Torruella, Circuit Judge.
                                           _____________

                                _____________________

               Stephen  B. Wade, with whom Skelton, Taintor & Abbott was on
               ________________            _________________________
          brief for appellant.
               James  D. Poliquin, with whom Norman, Hanson & Detroy was on
               __________________            _______________________
          brief for appellee Insurance Company of North America.

                                 ____________________

                                   October 18, 1995
                                 ____________________

                              
          ____________________

          *   Former Chief Judge Stephen Breyer heard oral argument in this
          matter but did not participate in the drafting or the issuance of
          the panel's opinion.  The remaining two panelists therefore issue
          this opinion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.   46(d).

                    TORRUELLA,  Chief Judge.   Maine  Drilling &  Blasting,
                    TORRUELLA,  Chief Judge.
                                ___________

          Inc. ("MD&B"), brought  suit in the United  States District Court

          of Maine,  alleging that the  Insurance Company of  North America

          ("INA")  was required to defend  and indemnify MD&B  in an action

          brought  against  MD&B arising  from  property  damage caused  by

          MD&B's  blasting work on a construction site.  The district court

          found that the  insurance policy at  issue excluded coverage  for

          the damages caused by MD&B, and granted summary judgment in favor

          of INA.  MD&B appealed, and  on August 29, 1994, we certified the

          following  dispositive  question  of  Maine law  to  the  Supreme

          Judicial Court of Maine.

                      Does     the    Explosives     Limitation
                      Endorsement  attached   to  the  standard
                      Comprehensive  General  Liability policy,
                      when considered in  conjunction with  the
                      business risk exclusions, j(5)  and j(6),
                      and  any  relevant  history  and  general
                      understanding of  the insurance industry,
                      create  such an ambiguity  that it should
                      be interpreted against the insurer, i.e.,
                      that  it  should  be  read  as  providing
                      business risk coverage for  MD&B's claims
                      against INA?

          Maine Drilling  and  Blasting, Inc.  v.  Insurance Co.  of  North
          ___________________________________      ________________________

          America, 34 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1994).
          _______

                    In  an opinion  dated September  29, 1995,  the Supreme

          Judicial  Court of Maine  answered the certified  question in the

          negative.

                      The  policy in  this case, read  with its
                      endorsements,       is       unambiguous.
                      Subsections  (j)(5)  and (j)(6)  serve to
                      limit  the  coverage  to   that  property
                      damage occurring to  property other  than
                      that on  which the insured  is to perform
                      its  work.    The   endorsement  confirms

                                         -2-

                      coverage   for   'occurrence   of   harm'
                      blasting   risk,   albeit  at   a  higher
                      deductible.  The endorsement by its plain
                      language does not  extend coverage  where
                      coverage did not  exist, but provides for
                      a deductible where  coverage does  exist.
                      The  exclusions contained  in subsections
                      (j)(5) and  (j)(6) are unaffected  by the
                      plain   language    of   the   Explosives
                      Limitation Endorsement.

                      We  answer the certified  question in the
                      negative.

                    The Supreme Judicial Court's conclusion that the policy

          is unambiguous is  dispositive of  the only issue  in this  case.

          Because  the policy  is unambiguous, the  exclusions apply.   The

          decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor

          of INA is therefore affirmed.
                              affirmed

                                         -3-