United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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
basic facts were set forth in my previous Memorandum and
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.
underlying Ayotte action has settled, and, pursuant
to that settlement, United Rentals paid a sum of money to the
previous Memorandum and Order, I resolved a number of
disputes concerning the relationship between the parties.
These rulings remain the law of the case.
I found that Massachusetts law governs this dispute.
I determined that Scottsdale's insurance contract with
Gomes required United Rentals to be added as an additional
insured. Id. at 22-23.
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.
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.
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