Cardigan Mountain School v. New Hampshire Insurance Compan
787 F.3d 82
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Cardigan Mountain School seeks a declaratory judgment that New Hampshire Insurance Company issued a policy for the 1967-1968 year.
- NHIC admits no policy exists in its records and argues it had no duty to defend or to confirm coverage for the 1967-1968 claim.
- The district court dismissed for failure to plausibly plead the policy's existence.
- The appeal centers on whether the complaint plausibly alleges the policy's existence despite lack of direct policy copies.
- Audit report from Sept. 1971 indicates a Special Multi-Peril policy with General Liability coverage for 1970-1971, linking to the earlier years.
- Allegations rely on recollections of school officials and a broker, and suggest no carrier change during 1967-1970, implying continuity of coverage for the disputed year.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the complaint plausibly allege the policy's existence? | School argues circumstantial facts show plausibility. | NHIC argues allegations are speculative. | Yes, plausible showing. |
| Are Iqbal/Twombly standards properly applied to a lost-policy pleading? | Pleadings should be deemed entitled to truth so long as specific facts are alleged. | Allegations are conclusory and should be dismissed. | Court adopts Iqbal/Twombly framework and finds allegations plausibly support existence of policy. |
| Does the audit trail and witness recollections suffice to infer a policy in place during 1967-1968? | Audit and memories of involved individuals provide circumstantial support. | Circumstantial evidence is insufficient without direct proof. | Allegations produce plausible inference of a policy in 1967-1968, meriting remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- García-Catalán v. United States, 734 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2013) (pleading must show plausibility, not probability, of claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (distinguishes factual assertions from legal conclusions; presumes truth of well-pleaded facts)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (requires plausibility, not mere possibility, of conspiracy or claim)
- Goldman v. First Nat'l Bank of Bos., 985 F.2d 1113 (1st Cir. 1993) (notes that theories not raised in district court cannot be raised on appeal)
- Morales-Tañon v. P.R. Elec. Power Auth., 524 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2008) (addressing standard for drawing inferences in pleading)