Boston Gas Company v. Century Indemnity Company
708 F.3d 254
1st Cir.2013Background
- Boston Gas and Century confront long-running insurance coverage for environmental cleanup costs at former manufactured gas plants (MGPs).
- Sites at Everett and Commercial Point were litigated; Century insured both sites 1951–1969 for Everett and 1886–1930 for Commercial Point.
- Massachusetts allocation law is central: SJC rejected all-sums and adopted pro rata or time-on-the-risk methods.
- Commercial Point verdict found contamination across Century policy years with exclusions: owned property and expected/intended.
- District court used judicial estoppel to allocate damages evenly over 121 years, reducing Century’s share; Boston Gas challenged timing and allocation.
- Court affirms district court’s rulings and remands for further proceedings, including handling of newly discovered contamination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allocation method post-SJC ruling | Boston Gas: verdict supports fact-based allocation | Century: time-on-the-risk allocation appropriate | Affirmed: time-on-the-risk allocation appropriate where verdict not a valid fact-based basis. |
| Judicial estoppel applicability | Boston Gas contends no inconsistency; continuous contamination theory valid | Century: inconsistent position established by prior trial testimony | Affirmed: judicial estoppel applied; Boston Gas bound by continuous-contamination position. |
| Owned property exclusion scope | Air/indirect effects may negate exclusion; off-site risk present | Air rights ownership and third-party risk limit coverage | Affirmed: exclusion applies only if evidence shows significant off-site migration risk. |
| Damages verdict and clerical correction | Jury awarded recoverable costs; no clerical error | Possible clerical error; offset by exclusion amounts | Affirmed: district court did not abuse in vacating/ordering new trial on damages. |
| Newly discovered contamination | Separate action should address new sites | Discretionary; no immediate need to delay final judgment | Affirmed: district court may address separately; no error in denying delay. |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (equitable foundation of judicial estoppel; integrity of process)
- InterGen N.V. v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134 (1st Cir. 2003) (two conditions for judicial estoppel: inconsistency and success in prior position)
- Guay v. Burak, 677 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012) (judicial estoppel considerations; historical facts )
- Thore v. Howe, 466 F.3d 173 (1st Cir. 2006) (equity-based limitations; exceptions to estoppel not present)
- Bowen Inv., Inc. v. Carneiro Donuts, Inc., 490 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2007) (Rule 60(a) clerical mistake standard; substantive rights test)
- Boston Gas Co. v. Century Indem. Co., 529 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2008) (allocation framework; all-sums rejected; pro rata favored by SJC)