James River Insurance Company v. Indian Harbor Insurance Comapny

Background

James River Insurance Company and Certified Safety, Inc. moved for reconsideration of the court’s October 31, 2019 Opinion and Order, which had denied their motion for summary judgment. The reconsideration motion concerned three issues in the insurance dispute with Indian Harbor Insurance Company: notice of the claim, coverage under the policy’s “professional services” provision, and waiver of Indian Harbor’s ability to deny coverage.

Notice

Plaintiffs argued that Certified gave timely notice to Assurance Agency, its insurance broker, and that this notice was sufficient because Assurance was acting as Indian Harbor’s agent. The court declined to reconsider its earlier ruling that the existence of an agency relationship was ordinarily a factual question unsuitable for summary judgment. Although plaintiffs identified evidence that Assurance sometimes accepted claims for Indian Harbor, the record also included contrary evidence suggesting that Certified’s officers understood Assurance could not accept claims for Indian Harbor. The factual disagreement therefore continued to prevent summary judgment.

Professional-Services Coverage

Plaintiffs argued that the court had misconstrued the term “professional services” in the insurance policy. The court rejected the argument again because plaintiffs had merely repeated arguments presented in support of their original summary-judgment motion. The court also relied on its original reasoning concerning factual uncertainty about the precise nature of the services Certified provided.

Waiver

Plaintiffs argued that Indian Harbor waived its ability to deny coverage because its initial denial used equivocal language, including a statement that coverage was not afforded to the extent damages did not arise from “PROFESSIONAL LOSS” and “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.” The court rejected that argument, explaining that waiver requires an intentional relinquishment of a known right and cannot be established without a clear manifestation of intent by Indian Harbor.

Disposition

Judge Oetken denied the motion for reconsideration in its entirety. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 39. The order did not alter the earlier denial of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.