Onebeacon America Insurance v. Commercial Union Assurance Co.
804 F. Supp. 2d 77
D. Mass.2011Background
- Early 1980s reinsurance relationships involving OneBeacon (formerly Commercial Union Insurance) and Aviva (Canada) across three policy years; 1980 OneBeacon Policy with Endorsement 4 and automatic cross-cancellation with policy 6687287; 1980 Aviva Policy issued in Canada with Difference in Conditions Endorsement referencing the 1980 policy; Facultative Certificate reinsured 1980 policy year only and included a Canada-dollar premium of $45,530; 1981 and 1982 OneBeacon Policies issued with unclear renewal status; Hurley deposition shows limited involvement in underwriting, raising credibility issues; Millette Affidavit argues 1981/1982 policies are not renewals of 1980 policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hurley Affidavit parts should be struck | Hurley’s testimony supports renewal, binding reinsurance. | Hurley lacks personal knowledge; statements are conclusory/sham. | Portions struck; Paragraph 6 partially and Paragraph 8 fully struck. |
| Whether Millette Affidavit contains admissible expert opinion | Millette provides expert view on renewal status. | Millette opinions on renewals and intent are inadmissible. | Millette opinions on renewals and intent stricken; other parts allowed. |
| Whether Aviva reinsured 1981 and 1982 OneBeacon Policies | Policies 1981/1982 are renewals reinsured 100%. | Facultative Certificate and surrounding facts show only 1980 policy reinsured. | Defendant did not reinsure 1981/1982 policies; summary judgment for Aviva entered in favor. |
| Whether Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment for 100% reinsurance | Plain language shows 100% reinsurance for all three periods. | Record shows only 1980 policy reinsured; 1981/1982 not renewals. | Denied for Plaintiff; Defendant’s summary judgment granted. |
| How to interpret contract language of reinsurance and renewals | Endorsements/phrases indicate renewal; language unambiguous. | Policy numbers, endorsements, and premiums show non-renewal or termination. | Contract interpretation favors Defendant; 1981/1982 not renewals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sarsfield v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 335 Fed.Appx. 63 (1st Cir. 2009) (contract interpretation and summary judgment principles apply to insurance disputes)
- Cody v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 387 Mass. 142, 439 N.E.2d 234 (Mass. 1982) (insurance contract interpretation is a question of law for judge)
- Allmerica Fin. Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 449 Mass. 621, 871 N.E.2d 418 (Mass. 2007) (contract interpretation and relevance of policy language)
- Roslindale Coop. Bank v. Greenwald, 638 F.2d 258 (1st Cir. 1981) (summary judgment standard and evidence adequacy)
- Colantuoni v. Alfred Calcagni & Sons, Inc., 44 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1994) (sham affidavit rule and personal knowledge)