Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. United Rentals North America, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

March 30, 2018

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED RENTALS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This is the second phase of an insurance coverage action arising from a personal injury suit in the Rhode Island courts. In the first phase, I found that plaintiff Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”) owed a duty to defend to defendant United Rentals (North America), Inc. (“United Rentals”) in an underlying personal injury action. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. United Rentals (N. Am.), Inc. (“Scottsdale I”), 152 F.Supp.3d 15 (D. Mass. 2015). The underlying action has now settled, and I am called upon to determine whether Scottsdale also owes United Rentals indemnification.

         The basic facts were set forth in my previous Memorandum and Order:

In a contract dated June 22, 2007, Gomes Services, Inc. (“Gomes”) rented an electric boom lift from United Rentals. Gomes used that lift at a trade show held at the Rhode Island Convention Center, where on June 26, 2007 an accident occurred. Guy Ayotte, the plaintiff in the underlying action, was struck and injured by the lift, which was then being operated by Gomes employee Mario Perez. At that time, Gomes was insured by Scottsdale. United Rentals had its own insurance policies, two of which are at issue in this litigation and now asserts that it was an additional insured on the Scottsdale policy as well. The relevant features of these contracts and policies will be described as they arise in the analysis of the legal questions presented.
After the accident, Ayotte and his wife filed suit in Rhode Island state court against United Rentals, Gomes, and others. Ayotte ex. rel. Ayotte v. Perez, C.A. No. 10-2164 (R.I. Super. Ct., amended complaint filed Mar. 11, 2011). Three counts in the amended complaint assert causes of action against United Rentals and are relevant here: Negligent Operation and Ownership Liability (Count I); Negligent Maintenance of a Dangerous Instrumentality (Count V), and Negligent Hiring of a Dangerous Instrumentality (Count VI). At the heart of the claims against United Rentals is the allegation that the lift should have been properly equipped with an alarm which warned bystanders of the lift's approach, but that the lift emitted no audible sounds at the time.

Scottsdale I, 152 F.Supp.3d at 18.

         The underlying Ayotte action has settled, and, pursuant to that settlement, United Rentals paid a sum of money to the Ayottes.[1]

         In my previous Memorandum and Order, I resolved a number of disputes concerning the relationship between the parties. These rulings remain the law of the case.

         First, I found that Massachusetts law governs this dispute. Id.

         Second, I determined that Scottsdale's insurance contract with Gomes required United Rentals to be added as an additional insured. Id. at 22-23.

         Third, I held that Scottsdale owed United Rentals a duty to defend in the underlying action, and that it had failed to do so. Id. at 25.

         Because a declaration concerning indemnification was not then ripe, however, I did not decide that issue. Id. at 19. But the issue is now ripe before me. Both parties now seek a declaratory judgment in their favor on the duty to indemnify, and United Rentals also seeks damages for Scottsdale's breach of its contractual duty to indemnify.

         The standard of review remains the same:

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate where there “is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [] the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Cross-motions for summary judgment do not alter this standard, but rather require a determination of whether either party can show an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the undisputed facts. Adria Int'l Grp., Inc. v. Ferre Dev., Inc., 241 F.3d 103, 107 (1st Cir. 2001). The ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.