Maclean v. Travelers Insurance Company, 1:16-cv-11338

In August 2013 Kevin and Donna Maclean were injured on the M/V NIKKI during a high‑speed tour; they later sued the operator(s) in a separate underlying tort action.
William Fallon owned the vessel and held a Commercial Marine Insurance Policy issued by Travelers effective June 26, 2013–June 26, 2014.
The policy included a Named Operator Endorsement warranting coverage is null and void whenever the vessel is operated by anyone not listed on the Named Operator Schedule.
At the time of the accident, Martin Cahill operated the vessel but was not listed as an approved named operator until two days after the incident.
Fallon assigned his rights under the policy to the Macleans to challenge Travelers’ denial of coverage; the Macleans brought this declaratory-judgment action seeking a ruling that Travelers must defend/indemnify Fallon.
Travelers moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, arguing Cahill’s unlisted operation breached the warranty and voided coverage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing and ripeness of declaratory action	Maclean (via assignment) has legal interest from Fallon and will be redressed by a favorable declaration; action is ripe despite unresolved underlying tort case	Plaintiffs lack standing and the declaratory claim is unripe because underlying liability is unresolved	Court held plaintiffs have standing and the declaratory claim is ripe; motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction denied
Applicability of law and effect of Named Operator Warranty	Maclean: Massachusetts law (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175 § 186) governs and would prevent voiding coverage or would limit effect of the warranty; retroactive addition of Cahill creates ambiguity	Travelers: Policy chooses federal maritime insurance law; the Named Operator provision is a promissory warranty—breach excuses insurer from coverage	Court held federal maritime insurance law governs; the Named Operator Endorsement is a promissory warranty and was breached, voiding coverage; motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim allowed

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (standing requires injury in fact causation and redressability)
Lloyd's of London v. Pagan-Sanchez, 539 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2008) (promissory warranties in maritime insurance can bar coverage)