Hanover Insurance Company v. Superior Labor Services, Inc., 2:11-cv-02375

Background

Allied Shipyard moved for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) of the Court’s July 12, 2017 grant of Lexington Insurance’s summary-judgment motions concerning Allied’s additional-insured status and Lexington’s duty to defend in two underlying suits (Adams and St. Pierre).
Lexington insured Masse Contracting under multiple policies (2000–2001 and 2008–2009); disputes turned on whether Allied qualified as an additional insured under those policies and whether Lexington’s 2008–2009 coverage was primary or excess.
Allied argued the court erred by deciding summary judgment before Allied had answered Lexington’s intervention/cross-claim and before Allied could conduct discovery (notably to show it was a “certificate holder”).
The 2000–2001 policy contained Endorsement #006 addressing coverage for "certificate holders," but the endorsement did not modify the policy’s Persons Insured definitions or create additional-insured status by certificate alone.
Under Louisiana law and precedent, certificates of insurance do not modify policy terms and cannot by themselves create coverage or an insurer–certificate holder contractual relationship.
The 2008–2009 Lexington additional-insured endorsement expressly states such coverage is excess unless a written contract requires it to be primary; the parties’ contracts did not require primary, non-contributory coverage.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by ruling before Allied answered/conducted discovery	Allied: summary judgment was premature; an answer/discovery could show it was a certificate holder and raise triable issues	Lexington: Allied had extensive opportunity to brief; answers/certificates would not change that the policy language controls	Denied — no answer/discovery could create a genuine issue: policy language and law make certificates immaterial
Whether being a "certificate holder" under 2000–2001 policy confers additional-insured status	Allied: Endorsement #006 provides protection to certificate holders as persons insured	Lexington: Endorsement does not alter Persons Insured; certificate status alone does not create coverage	Denied — endorsement does not modify insured definitions; Allied is not an insured under the policy
Whether certificates of insurance can expand coverage	Allied: could rely on certificates to show entitlement	Lexington: certificates are mere evidence and cannot modify the policy	Denied — under Louisiana law, certificates cannot create coverage absent corresponding policy language
Whether 2008–2009 Lexington policy is excess or primary	Allied (in reconsideration): court erred; relied on Fifth Circuit authority to support primary application	Lexington: endorsement expressly makes coverage excess unless a written contract requires primary/non-contributory coverage; no such contract term exists	Denied — coverage is excess; Lexington owes no duty to defend until primary insurance is exhausted

Key Cases Cited

Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563 (5th Cir. 2003) (standard for Rule 59(e) relief: manifest error or new evidence required)
Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (reconsideration is not for rehashing arguments)
Ogea v. Loffland Bros. Co., 622 F.2d 186 (5th Cir. 1980) (indemnitee-purchased-additional-insured context; discussed in comparing primary/excess issues)
Tullier v. Halliburton Geophysical Servs., 81 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 1996) (additional-insured/primary-insurance analysis in indemnity contexts)
Marquette Transp. Co. v. La. Mach. Co., 367 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2004) (insurance-contract interpretation regarding primary versus excess coverage)