Court Opinion

ID: 9912592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 20:00:45.896739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:24.098173
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                      For the First Circuit

No. 23-1359

                    GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

                        MARTIN ANDERSSON,

                       Defendant, Appellee.

          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

         [Hon. Timothy S. Hillman, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                   Gelpí, Howard, and Rikelman,
                         Circuit Judges.

     Michael I. Goldman, with whom The Goldman Maritime Law Group
was on brief, for appellant.
     Michelle M. Niemeyer, with whom Michelle M. Niemeyer, P.A.,
Harvey B. Heafitz, and Davagian Grillo & Semple LLP, were on brief,
for appellee.

                        December 22, 2023
           GELPÍ,     Circuit      Judge.     Defendant-Appellee       Martin

Andersson ("Andersson") purchased an insurance policy ("policy")

for his vessel, the Melody ("vessel"), from Plaintiff-Appellant

Great Lakes Insurance SE ("Great Lakes") in November 2018.                   In

December   2019,    the   vessel   ran   aground   off   the   coast   of   the

Dominican Republic.       Great Lakes brought a declaratory judgment

action to determine coverage under the policy and Andersson filed

counterclaims for breach of contract and equitable estoppel. Great

Lakes moved for summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claim

and Andersson moved for partial summary judgment on his breach of

contract claim.     Great Lakes' motion was denied, and Andersson was

granted partial summary judgment on his breach of contract claim.

Great Lakes now appeals the denial of its motion for summary

judgment, and entry of summary judgment in Andersson's favor,

claiming the district court erred as a matter of law in refusing

to apply the policy's definition of seaworthiness.1             We affirm.

     1 This interlocutory appeal is properly before us pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) because it determines the rights and
liabilities of the parties to an admiralty case. See Great Lakes
Ins. SE v. Andersson, 66 F.4th 20, 22 (1st Cir. 2023) (stating
interlocutory appeal in admiralty law is properly before the court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3)); United States v. Nature's Way
Marine, L.L.C., 904 F.3d 416, 419 n.5 (5th Cir. 2018) (exercising
jurisdiction over appeal from ruling of partial summary judgment).
In a previous decision, we held that the policy's choice of law
provision    does   not   bar    Andersson   from    bringing   an
unfair-settlement-practices counterclaim under Massachusetts law.
See Andersson, 66 F.4th at 22. This appeal does not involve that
claim, so we omit any further reference to it.

                                     - 2 -
                             I. Background

                               A. Facts2

           In   November   2018,   Andersson   purchased    an   insurance

policy from Great Lakes which afforded $365,000 in first party

property damage coverage for his vessel and covered Florida, the

Bahamas, and the Caribbean.3       The policy was issued in December

2018.    The policy's seaworthiness warranty stated that "[i]t is

warranted that the Scheduled Vessel is seaworthy at all times

during the duration of this insuring agreement.            Breach of this

warranty will void this insuring agreement from its inception."

The policy defined "seaworthy" as:

     [F]it for the Scheduled Vessel's intended purpose.
     Seaworthiness applies not only to the physical condition
     of the hull, but to all its parts, equipment and gear
     and includes the responsibility of assigning an adequate
     crew. For the Scheduled Vessel to be seaworthy, it and
     its crew must be reasonably proper and suitable for its
     intended use.

The policy defined "Scheduled Vessel" as:

     [T]he vessel described on the declaration page,
     including machinery, electrical equipment, sails, masts,
     spars, rigging, and all other equipment normally
     required for the operation and maintenance of the vessel
     and situate on the Scheduled Vessel, which would
     normally be sold with the vessel. This does not include

     2 The relevant facts for review of summary judgment are
undisputed, except as noted.     See Underwriters at Lloyd's v.
Labarca, 260 F.3d 3, 5 (1st Cir. 2001).
     3 Great Lakes claims that Andersson chose the locations,
whereas Andersson claims the broker chose the locations with little
input from him and that his language barrier prevented him from
specifying the correct locations.

                                   - 3 -
      spare parts of the Scheduled Vessel, the Scheduled
      Vessel’s life raft, tender or dinghy unless the same has
      been declared on the declaration page, nor does it
      include any items being stored on premises other than on
      board the Scheduled Vessel.

Andersson alleges that he intended to pick up the vessel in Grenada

after it was repaired and sail to Aruba before he ended his journey

in Sint Maarten.4      It is unclear whether there were, or were not,

any paper charts on the vessel at the time of the policy's

inception.5

              On December 14, 2019, Andersson left Aruba for Sint

Maarten having checked the weather forecasts for the intended route

without issue.     The intended route was around the southeastern tip

of   Aruba,    then   northeast   to   clear   the   Venezuelan   Islands.

Andersson then planned to head east toward Grenada and then north

to Sint Maarten.      After rounding the southeastern tip of Aruba and

attempting to head northeast, the winds increased and caused his

crewmember to become seasick.          Andersson headed more northward,

attempting to avoid damage from the waves and ease his crewmember’s

seasickness.     Eventually, the winds pushed Andersson northwesterly

toward the Dominican Republic, at which point he realized his radio

      4While commonly referred to as Saint Martin, we chose to
provide the island's proper Dutch name, Sint Maarten.
      5Great Lakes claims that at the inception of the policy, the
only current paper charts on the vessel were for the Leeward
Islands, Windward Islands, and Aruba. Andersson, however, claims
that there is no evidence that any paper charts were on the vessel
at the inception of the policy.

                                   - 4 -
transmitter was broken.      He called the agent who sold him the

vessel who suggested Andersson dock in Boca Chica, Dominican

Republic, for repairs.

          On December 17, 2019, within the policy's period of

coverage, while waiting to dock in Boca Chica, the vessel ran

aground on a breakwater.     It is undisputed that at the time the

vessel left for its voyage, the same had updated paper charts

onboard for the Leeward Islands, the Windward Islands, and Aruba,

all of which were on Andersson's intended course from Aruba to

Sint Maarten.   The vessel also had electronic charts on its Garmin

GPS for the Dominican Republic which were outdated and did not

show the breakwater.6     More current charts that were available,

but not on board, in December 2018 did show the breakwater.    The

other GPS onboard, the Raymarine, did not have charts for the

Dominican Republic.   It is also undisputed that the vessel lacked

up-to-date paper charts for Florida, the Bahamas, and the Western

Caribbean during the trip from Aruba to Sint Maarten.

                         B. Procedural History

          Following the breakwater incident, Andersson requested

coverage and Great Lakes filed a declaratory judgment to determine

whether the loss of the vessel was covered by the policy, claiming

     6 Andersson disputes the fact that the Garmin was never
updated, however, it is undisputed that the Garmin did not show
the breakwater and that updated Garmin charts did.

                                - 5 -
the vessel was unseaworthy due to the lack of up-to-date paper

charts for Florida, the Bahamas, the Western Caribbean, and the

Dominican Republic.         Thereafter, before judgment, Great Lakes

denied    coverage   claiming   Andersson      neglected     to   maintain   the

vessel in a seaworthy condition per federal admiralty law and the

policy.     Andersson counterclaimed, alleging a claim of breach of

contract and a claim of equitable estoppel.             As to the breach of

contract claim, Andersson alleged that the vessel was seaworthy at

all times, maintaining up-to-date paper charts for its intended

voyage.    Great Lakes moved for summary judgment on its declaratory

judgment claim, alleging that the lack of updated paper charts for

Florida, the Bahamas, the Western Caribbean, and the Dominican

Republic rendered the vessel unseaworthy. Andersson filed a motion

for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim.

            The   district    court    held   a   summary    judgment   motion

hearing on December 19, 2022, before issuing its order on March 21,

2023.     The district court denied Great Lakes' motion for summary

judgment    and   granted    Andersson's      motion   for   partial    summary

judgment.    The district court determined that Great Lakes had not

proven that the vessel was unseaworthy under federal admiralty law

and the policy.      The district court granted Andersson's motion for

summary judgment as to his breach of contract claim, and denied

Great Lakes motion for summary judgment as to its declaratory

judgment claim.

                                      - 6 -
                          II. Discussion7

          Great Lakes makes a single argument on appeal:       The

district court erred as a matter of law by refusing to enforce the

policy's express definition of seaworthiness.   But in making this

argument, Great Lakes also relies on the absolute implied warranty

of seaworthiness, which it contends was incorporated into the

policy.   Great Lakes claims that the policy's express warranty of

seaworthiness is at least coextensive with the implied warranty of

seaworthiness based in federal admiralty law, and that the district

court erred by interpreting this implied warranty too narrowly.

But even if the implied warranty of seaworthiness does not require

a vessel to carry up-to-date charts for every single location that

could be navigated under the policy's coverage area, Great Lakes

argues that the policy's plain language imposes such a requirement.

Because the policy's express warranty requires a vessel to have

adequate "parts, equipment and gear" to be seaworthy, Great Lakes

asserts that the district court violated fundamental principles of

     7 Great Lakes and Andersson both make references to "charts,"
"paper charts," and "electronic charts" in their briefs.
Throughout the discussion, we use the terms "charts" and "paper
charts." However, regardless of the term used, our ruling applies
to any type of chart.

                               - 7 -
contract interpretation by finding that the policy did not require

the vessel to have the charts on board.

           Ultimately, we must determine whether either warranty

required the vessel to carry up-to-date charts for all geographic

areas covered by the policy in order to be considered seaworthy.

We begin with the implied warranty of seaworthiness.                Like the

district court, we find no precedent to suggest that the implied

warranty imposes such a requirement.      Therefore, we proceed to the

express terms of the policy.

                        A. Standard of Review

           A district court's summary judgment ruling is reviewed

de novo.   O'Neill v. Baker, 210 F.3d 41, 46 (1st Cir. 2000).             In

this case, Andersson filed a cross-motion for summary judgment,

but "[t]he presence of [the same] neither dilutes nor distorts

this standard of review."       Mandel v. Bos. Phx., Inc., 456 F.3d

198, 205 (1st Cir. 2006).      "[W]e must scrutinize the record in the

light most favorable to the summary judgment loser . . . ."             All.

of Auto. Mfrs. v. Gwadosky, 430 F.3d 30, 34 (1st Cir. 2005).

           B. Absolute Implied Warranty of Seaworthiness

           Under   admiralty    law,   there   is   an   absolute    implied

warranty applicable to all marine insurance contracts.8                  See

     8Under American federal admiralty law, there are two distinct
implied warranties that attach to all time hull policies: the
absolute implied warranty that attaches at inception, and the
continuing implied warranty that is recognized at the commencement

                                  - 8 -
Labarca, 260 F.3d at 7.          The absolute implied warranty requires

that the insured vessel be seaworthy at the inception of the

policy.   See Schoenbaum, supra, at 505-06; Emps. Ins. of Wausau v.

Occidental Petroleum Corp., 978 F.2d 1422, 1431-32 (5th Cir. 1992).

If the vessel is not seaworthy at the policy's inception, then the

policy is void.     See Schoenbaum, supra, at 507.            The insurer bears

the burden of proving the unseaworthiness.             See Cont'l Ins. Co. v.

Lone   Eagle    Shipping    Ltd.   (Liber.),    952    F.     Supp.   1046,   1067

(S.D.N.Y.      1997).      "[S]eaworthiness      can     be     established     by

demonstrating     that     the   vessel   was   well-maintained."             Carib

Resorts, Inc. v. Watkins Underwriters at Lloyds, Syndicate No.

457, No. 16-25024-CV-GRAHAM/SIMONTON, 2018 WL 8048755, at *16

(S.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2018) (citing Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC

v. Kan-Do, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-2923-T-33TGW, 2014 WL 12573013, at *5

(M.D. Fla. June 16, 2014)).          "[A] finding of unseaworthiness is

of each individual voyage the vessel takes.         See Thomas J.
Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law 505-07 (6th ed. 2018 & Supp.
2023).   Both Great Lakes and Andersson refer to, and seem to
accept, both implied warranties in their briefs.      The district
court also utilized both implied warranties in its summary judgment
order. However, Great Lakes stated that this appeal pertains only
to "the first warranty, the absolute warranty of seaworthiness
that applies at the inception of every policy of marine insurance"
as its argument concerns the vessel's seaworthiness at the time of
the inception of the policy, not its continuing seaworthiness.
Therefore, we omit discussion on the second implied warranty of
seaworthiness and focus only on the absolute implied warranty.

                                     - 9 -
not affected by whether the owner was or was not negligent or at

fault."    Labarca, 260 F.3d at 8.

            The cases considering the issue find that the absolute

implied warranty concerns whether the physical condition of the

vessel and its equipment are sufficient for the vessel's intended

use.   See Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 364 U.S. 325, 331

(1960) (discussing whether a worn grip on a wrench rendered the

vessel unseaworthy); Martinez v. Sea Land Servs., Inc., 763 F.2d

26, 27-28 (1st Cir. 1985) (determining a summary judgment ruling

was erroneous because seaworthiness extends to a plastic sleeve

covering    a   box);     Axis   Reinsurance      Co.   v.    Resmondo,    No.

8:08-cv-569-T-33TBM, 2009 WL 1537903, *4 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2009)

(determining    whether     fractured    gimbal    ring      rendered   vessel

unseaworthy at inception); Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Deep Sea Int'l,

No. 02 Civ. 3175 (KMW)(FM), 2006 WL 8454021, *6-8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.

24, 2006) (discussing repair and maintenance of the vessel in

regard to absolute implied warranty).       "A vessel is unseaworthy if

it is not fit and 'is unable to withstand the perils of an ordinary

voyage.'"   Home Ins. Co. v. Pan Am. Grain Mfg. Co., Inc., 397 F.3d

12, 13 n.2 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting Unseaworthy, Black's Law

Dictionary (6th ed. 1990)); Hubbard v. Faros Fisheries, Inc., 626

F.2d 196, 199 (1st Cir. 1980) ("[T]emporary and unforeseeable

malfunction or failure of a piece of equipment under proper and

expected            use             is              sufficient              to

                                   - 10 -
establish . . . unseaworthiness . . . ."); cf. United States v.

Rivera, 131 F.3d 222, 233 n.16 (1st Cir. 1997) (Torruella, J.,

concurring) ("The warranty of seaworthiness provides that the

owner of a vessel owes an absolute duty to seamen to provide a

ship's hull, gear, appliances, ways, and appurtenances which are

reasonably fit for their intended purpose, Mitchell v. Trawler

Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 80 S. Ct. 926, 4 L.Ed.2d 941 (1960), as

well as to appoint a competent master and a crew adequate in their

number and competent for their duty, Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas

Corp., 400 U.S. 494, 91 S. Ct. 514, 27 L.Ed.2d 562 (1971).").

           To make the vessel seaworthy under the absolute implied

warranty, Andersson was not required to keep up-to-date paper

charts on board for every covered location from the inception of

the   policy.     Great    Lakes   contends   that   the   district   court

"refuse[d] to consider whether the lack of current, updated charts

rendered the [v]essel unfit for its 'intended purpose' at the

inception of the [p]olicy."          This is simply incorrect.          The

district court did consider this in the context of the absolute

implied warranty of seaworthiness when it found that "there are no

cases in which the court held that a lack of up-to-date maps voids

an    insurance   policy   from    its   inception   under   the   [f]irst

[w]arranty; the [c]ourt found none where the argument was even

made."   In addition, the district court found that Great Lakes was

                                   - 11 -
not claiming a deficiency in the physical condition of the vessel,

therefore the absolute implied warranty does not apply.

            As noted above, the absolute implied warranty has been

interpreted by caselaw to pertain to the physical condition of the

vessel.    There have been no cases that have determined out-of-date

paper charts to be a violation of the absolute implied warranty of

seaworthiness.     In addition, Great Lakes' argument that up-to-date

paper charts for any location the vessel could navigate during the

entirety of the policy coverage area are required on the vessel at

the    inception   of    the    policy   is   simply    unreasonable.       It   is

difficult to ascertain how Andersson could predict exactly where

his vessel would dock in every port in the Caribbean if the dock

were not on his intended voyage, let alone account for the myriad

of    updates   that    might    occur   over   the    course   of   the   policy.

Therefore, the absolute implied warranty, which attaches at the

inception of the policy and renders the policy void if the vessel

was unseaworthy, does not support Great Lakes' argument that

up-to-date charts for every location that could be navigated under

the entirety of the coverage area are required when the policy

attaches to deem a vessel seaworthy.

            The cases that Great Lakes cites do not alter this

conclusion.     Although the existence of up-to-date paper charts may

go to a breach of the continuing implied warranty of seaworthiness,

not at issue here, the cases that Great Lakes cites do not stand

                                     - 12 -
for the proposition that a vessel must have up-to-date paper charts

from       the   policy's   inception    to   satisfy   the   absolute   implied

warranty of seaworthiness.              Crucially, the cases cited analyze

only whether the party responsible for that breach met the privity

or   knowledge      portion   associated      with   that   continuing   implied

warranty, not the absolute implied warranty, or had knowledge of

the condition pursuant to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.9

       See Cont'l Ins. Co., 952 F. Supp. at 1070; Union Oil of Cal.
       9

v. M/V Point Dover, 756 F.2d 1223, 1229 (5th Cir. 1985) (analyzing
whether the failure to keep up-to-date charts and maps breached
the continuing implied warranty based on actual knowledge); Dir.
Gen. of India Supply Mission for & ex rel. President of Union of
India v. S.S. Maru, 459 F.2d 1370, 1371 (2d Cir. 1972) (considering
whether the defendant could successfully raise the defense of the
shipowner's negligence under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act);
The W.W. Bruce, 94 F.2d 834, 837 (2d Cir. 1938) ("The burden of
proving the exercise of due diligence to make the ship seaworthy
is upon the owner . . . ." (emphasis added)); The Maria, 91 F.2d
819, 824 (4th Cir. 1937) (asking whether the shipowner exercised
"due diligence" under the continuing implied warranty); Matter of
Complaint of Supreme Towing Co. Inc., No. 07-9231, 2010 WL
11561150, at *22 (E.D. La. Aug. 12, 2010) ("Having established
that the CAPT. BRENNAN was unseaworthy, and that the CAPT.
BRENNAN’s unseaworthy condition was the proximate cause of its
allision with Well #14, the Court must now determine whether
Supreme Towing had privity or knowledge of the CAPT. BRENNAN’s
unseaworthy condition."); In re TT Boat Corp., No. CIV A 98-494,
1999 WL 223165, at *10–11 (E.D. La. Apr. 14, 1999) (analyzing under
46 U.S.C. § 183(a) whether the captain possessed knowledge of the
lack   of   up-to-date    charts   that   led   to   the   vessel's
unseaworthiness); Complaint of Thebes Shipping, Inc., 486 F. Supp.
436, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (discussing COGSA's due diligence
standard); Complaint of Delphinus Maritima, S.A., 523 F. Supp.
583, 593 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) ("Having brought this action, the initial
burden was on the vessel owner to show no fault on its part or if
there was fault, that the fault was without personal knowledge."
(citing Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States, 584 F.2d 1151,
1155 (2d Cir. 1978))).

                                        - 13 -
                   C. Express Warranty of Seaworthiness

            We     next    consider       whether     the        policy's    express

seaworthiness warranty required Andersson to carry the charts in

question.       Under New York law, which governs the policy here, "the

[c]ourt should interpret an insurance contract 'to give effect to

the intent of the parties as expressed in the clear language of

the contract.'"        Royal Indem. Co. v. Deep Sea Int'l, 619 F. Supp.

2d 14, 18 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Parks Real Estate Purchasing

Grp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 472 F.3d 33, 42 (2d Cir.

2006)).     "An insurance policy should be read in light of common

speech    and    the   reasonable      expectations     of   a    businessperson."

Pepsico, Inc. v. Winterthur Int'l Am. Ins. Co., 788 N.Y.S.2d 142,

144 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted).        Each provision should be given "full meaning and

effect."    LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Nomura Asset Cap. Corp., 424

F.3d 195, 206 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Shaw Grp., Inc. v. Triplefine

Int'l Corp., 322 F.3d 115, 121 (2d Cir. 2003)).                       In addition,

"[t]he rule that insurance policies are to be construed in favor

of the insured is most rigorously applied in construing the meaning

of exclusions incorporated into a policy of insurance or provisions

seeking to narrow the insurer's liability."                      Ingersoll Milling

Mach. Co. v. M/V Bodena, 829 F.2d 293, 306 (2d Cir. 1987).                     These

insurance       policies   "are   to    be   accorded    a   strict    and    narrow

construction."         Pioneer Tower Owners Ass'n v. State Farm Fire &

                                       - 14 -
Cas. Co., 908 N.E.2d 875, 877 (N.Y. 2009).          "Every clause or word

is deemed to have some meaning."        Mazzaferro v. RLI Ins. Co., 50

F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 1995).

            Great Lakes argues that insurance contracts, just like

other contracts, must be read as a whole, giving meaning to each

clause and provision.      The insurance policy at issue here includes

a     seaworthiness     warranty    provision,      the     definition   of

seaworthiness, and the definition of a scheduled vessel, detailed

above.    Ultimately, Great Lakes argues that the district court

failed to follow New York law when it did not interpret these

provisions to have required Andersson to carry the charts in

question.      Narrowly interpreting the policy, as required under New

York law, and considering the language used by Great Lakes leaves

its argument baseless.

            Although Great Lakes primarily objects to the district

court's failure to rely on the policy's language, it concedes that

the district court did quote part of the policy's definition of

seaworthiness.      Great Lakes nonetheless contends that the district

court "neutered" the policy's express definition of seaworthy when

it did not include up-to-date paper charts in its interpretation

of the language "parts, equipment and gear."         However, this is not

so.      The    district   court   simply   found    that    Great   Lakes'

interpretation was not supported by the express terms of the

policy, precedent, or common sense.           To construe the express

                                   - 15 -
warranty in such a way would be to require a vessel to have and

maintain updated paper charts for every location in the area where

it could navigate at all times from the time the policy commences

which,   as    we    stated    above,   is    completely   unreasonable   and

unsupported     by   admiralty    caselaw.      Further,   interpreting   the

policy in this manner would render the policy void from its

inception whether the vessel ran aground or not.            In addition, the

district court compared this case to that of Acadia Ins. Co. v.

Hansen, which had a similar express warranty of seaworthiness.

See 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75760 (E.D.N.Y. 2022).                  The court

determined there that "the applicable measure for a breach of

express warranty of seaworthiness is whether the vessel was fit

for its voyage intended when it embarked."                 Id. at *91.    The

district court used this holding to clarify that an express

warranty of seaworthiness concerns whether the vessel was equipped

for its specific intended course, not for every location that could

be navigated under the entirety of the policy coverage area at its

inception, rendering Great Lakes' argument meritless.

              Great Lakes argues that the district court should have

taken a closer look at the policy's language.              But doing so only

confirms that the district court reached the correct outcome.

First, nowhere in the express terms of the policy are charts

required or mentioned, nor do they qualify under the definition of

a "Scheduled Vessel."         Narrowly construing the policy's definition

                                     - 16 -
of "Scheduled Vessel," charts cannot be recognized as an included

element.   Charts are not "machinery, electrical equipment, sails,

masts, spars, or rigging."10    And although charts are arguably

"equipment normally required for the operations and maintenance of

the vessel," they are not "normally . . . sold with the vessel,"

and therefore do not qualify as part of the "Scheduled Vessel."

In the definition of seaworthiness, it is not clearly stated that

     10 Machinery is defined as "machines in general or as a
functioning unit," "the working parts of a machine," or "the means
or system by which something is kept in action or a desired result
is obtained."    Electrical is "of, relating to, or operated by
electricity" which by its terms excludes paper charts when in
reference to equipment. Sails are "an extent of fabric (such as
canvas) by means of which wind is used to propel a ship through
water" or "the sails of a ship." A mast is "a long pole or spar
rising from the keel or deck of a ship and supporting the yards,
booms, and rigging" or "a slender vertical or nearly vertical
structure (such as an upright post in various cranes)." A spar is
"a stout pole" or "a stout rounded usually wood or metal piece
(such as a mast, boom, gaff, or yard) used to support rigging."
Rigging is "lines and chains used aboard a ship especially in
working sail and supporting masts and spars."            Machinery,
Merriam-Webster                 Online                 Dictionary,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machinery          (last
visited Dec. 21, 2023); Electrical, Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/electrical
(last visited Dec. 21, 2023); Sail, Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sail (last
visited Dec. 21, 2023); Mast, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mast    (last    visited
Dec. 21, 2023);      Spar,   Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spar (last visited on
Dec. 21, 2023); Rigging, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rigging (last visited
Dec. 21, 2023); cf. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, (11th
ed. 2020); Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003)
(providing the same definitions for each term with the omission of
"such" in the parentheticals).

                               - 17 -
charts are considered "parts, equipment or gear" and Great Lakes

has provided no caselaw, as discussed above, to support that

interpretation.   Insurance contracts are to be construed against

the insurer, further weakening Great Lakes' argument that "charts"

should be read into the policy.   See Ingersoll Milling Mach. Co.,

829 F.2d at 306-07 (construing the meaning of provisions seeking

to narrow insurer's liability in favor of the insured).

          Second, at no point do the express terms of the policy

warranty require a higher standard at any particular time, most

notably not at the inception of the agreement.       The warranty

provision of seaworthiness only requires that the 1) "[s]cheduled

[v]essel" 2) must be "seaworthy" 3) "at all times" 4) "during the

duration of [the] insuring agreement."    The only mention of the

inception of the policy is in the warranty where it notes that the

policy would be void from its inception if the vessel was not

seaworthy "at all times."   What the policy does not do is require

that the vessel itself must be seaworthy in the specific sense

that it maintain updated charts for every location that could be

navigated under the entirety of the policy coverage area, from the

inception of the policy.    Therefore, the argument that updated

paper charts are required on board at the inception of the policy

for every area covered by the policy is unsupported by the express

language of the policy.

                              - 18 -
            Third, even if it were to be determined that updated

paper charts were included in "parts, equipment and gear," there

is a difference in language used in the definition of seaworthiness

between the vessel's intended "purpose" and intended "use."       As

the definition states, "[f]or the Scheduled Vessel to be seaworthy,

it . . . must be reasonably proper and suitable for its intended

use."   Intended "use" is not defined or limited in the policy

language.    The intended "use" of the vessel could change daily

depending on the journey embarked upon or the activities pursued,

requiring different "parts, equipment and gear" for each "use."

In addition, the two different phrases within the provision,

"intended use" and "intended purpose," are to be given their own

full effect and meaning, per New York law.    See LaSalle Bank Nat'l

Ass'n, 424 F.3d at 206; Theater Guild Prods., Inc. v. Ins. Corp.

of Ir., 267 N.Y.S.2d 297, 300-01 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966).

            In addition to its main argument that the policy language

was not applied, Great Lakes also argues that affirmation of the

district court order would render a vessel unseaworthy in a tort

liability sense due to a lack of updated charts, but seaworthy in

an insurance dispute even with the lack of updated charts.      This

argument fails.    We see nothing to suggest that a vessel would be

liable in tort for failing to carry paper charts for routes it

never intended to sail.

                                - 19 -
               Great Lakes lastly attempts to argue that the district

court order gave no reasonable basis for asserting that Great Lakes

could    not    expressly     enforce   the   definition    of   seaworthiness

provided in Labarca, which Great Lakes claims to have mirrored in

its own policy.       Rather, Labarca stands for the proposition that

we have outlined above: that a vessel's seaworthiness depends upon

whether it is "reasonably fit for [its] intended use[,]" which

itself turns upon the circumstances.                 Labarca, 260 F.3d at 7

(quoting Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. at 550).                  We have never

held, nor do we now, that this finding turns upon one irrelevant

facet of a vessel's voyage that bears no connection to whether it

is reasonably fit for its intended use.               The notion that Great

Lakes was relying on Labarca, which therefore means charts for

every location that could be navigated under the entirety of the

policy    coverage     area    are   included   in    the   determination   of

seaworthiness at a policy's inception, is unsupported and fails as

this is not what Labarca held.

               When we narrowly construe the policy, read it as a whole,

and give meaning to each of its words and provisions, we conclude

it cannot reasonably be read to require updated paper charts for

every location that could be navigated under the entirety of the

policy coverage area to be on board at the inception of the policy.

In addition, there is no precedent supporting the claim that

updated paper charts for every location that could be navigated

                                     - 20 -
under the entirety of the policy coverage area are required to

have been on board the vessel at the inception of the policy.

Therefore, Great Lakes' arguments fail and the district court's

order in favor of Andersson for partial summary judgment was

warranted.

                           III. Conclusion

         The   district    court's   order   finding   Andersson   to   be

covered by the policy is

               Affirmed.

                                - 21 -