Baker v. St. Paul Travelers Insurance
670 F.3d 119
1st Cir.2012Background
- Baker seeks underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from St. Paul for injuries incurred while employed by Safety Source Northeast.
- Massachusetts law generally bars recovery under both workers' compensation (WC) and employer-provided UIM, unless the employer explicitly purchased UIM to cover employees.
- In Baker I (200->2010), the panel held Massachusetts law applies and remanded for discovery on whether Safety explicitly purchased UIM for employees.
- Discovery on remand showed Safety’s president and insurer agent testified no clear intent to cover employees; evidence suggested UIM was offered to cover out-of-state or non-employee scenarios.
- The district court denied Baker’s discovery motion and granted summary judgment for St. Paul; Baker appeals.
- The First Circuit AFFIRMS the district court, holding no genuine issue of material fact that Safety explicitly purchased UIM for employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion on sanctions for Rule 30(b)(6) deposition | Baker contends St. Paul’s instructions not to answer were improper | St. Paul limited questions outside remand scope | No abuse; narrowly within discretion and scope ruled by court |
| Whether Restaine was a sufficiently knowledgeable Rule 30(b)(6) witness | Restaine lacked knowledge to testify on issue | Restaine had insurance expertise and reviewed relevant documents | Restaine was adequately knowledgeable; no sanctions for non-appearance |
| Whether Safety explicitly purchased UIM to cover employees | Evidence implied explicit purchase for employees | No evidence of explicit intent to cover employees; UIM included for broader risk | No genuine issue; district court’s summary judgment correct |
| Whether Baker showed a genuine issue of material fact on employer’s intent | Testimony could show employer’s intent to cover employees | Record shows lack of explicit employee coverage intent | No genuine issue; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the National Union carve-out applies | Carve-out should apply if intent to protect employees is shown | Carve-out requires explicit purchase for employee coverage | Carve-out does not apply; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- R.W. International Corp. v. Welch Foods, Inc., 937 F.2d 11 (1st Cir. 1991) (sanctions for non-appearance apply only to literal non-appearance;Rule 30(b)(6) deposition distinguished from individuals)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. S. Union Co., 985 F.2d 196 (5th Cir. 1993) (designee with no knowledge can warrant sanctions; differs from employee non-appearance)
- Black Horse Lane Assoc., L.P. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 228 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2000) (sanctions for constructive non-appearance when designee fails to prepare or answer)
- Harriman v. Hancock Cnty., 627 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2010) (credibility not enough to create issue of material fact about witnesses)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Goldstone & Sudalter, P.C., 128 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 1997) (credibility arguments cannot manufacture factual disputes)
- Ji v. Bose Corp., 626 F.3d 116 (1st Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing discovery orders is abuse of discretion)
- Meléndez-García v. Sánchez, 629 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (sanctions standards for discovery and related rulings)