Quest Diagnostics, LLC v. Pinnacle Consortium of Higher Education, a Vermont Reciprocal Risk Retention Group
2014 R.I. LEXIS 102
R.I.2014Background
- Quest Diagnostics sues to obtain defense/indemnification from Pinnacle and Genesis under insurance policies arising from Brown University PSA.
- PSA required Brown and Quest to obtain certain coverages and to name each other as additional insured on general liability; professional liability coverage was not required to name Quest.
- Brown obtained Pinnacle general and professional liability coverage; Endorsement 7 excludes professional liability from general liability coverage for hospital/health facility activities.
- Endorsement 17 provides professional liability coverage but Quest is not covered under it as an additional insured; PSA indicates mutual intent to limit Quest’s coverage.
- Ms. Hall’s claim arose from Quest’s alleged negligent laboratory testing and reporting; underlying actions and cross-claims triggered the dispute over which policy covers the claims.
- Trial court granted Pinnacle/Genesis summary judgment against Quest; on appeal the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Quest is an insured under Pinnacle’s general liability coverage. | Quest is an additional insured under Endorsement 4. | Endorsement 7 excludes professional liability from GL coverage; Quest not covered. | No; Endorsement 7 excludes professional liability from GL coverage, so Quest not covered under GL for this action. |
| Whether Quest is an insured under Pinnacle's professional liability coverage. | Endorsement 17 should cover Quest as an additional insured. | PSA limits additional insured status to GL; no agreement to name Quest under Prof. Liab. | No; Quest is not an insured under Pinnacle’s professional liability coverage; coverage does not extend to Quest. |
| Whether Genesis excess coverage provides coverage for Quest. | Genesis excess coverage should apply given underlying Pinnacle coverage. | Genesis relies on underlying Pinnacle coverage; no coverage for Quest under professional liability. | Genesis coverage not triggered because no underlying Pinnacle coverage for Quest’s professional liability. |
| Whether Pinnacle/Genesis waived denial of coverage by untimely defense demand. | Defendants waived rights by delaying response to Quest's defense demand. | No defense obligation where no covered claim; estoppel cannot enlarge coverage. | Estoppel cannot enlarge policy coverage; no waiver of defense rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peloquin v. Haven Health Center of Greenville, LLC, 61 A.3d 419 (R.I. 2013) (summary judgment de novo standard; contract interpretation guidance)
- Rotelli v. Catanzaro, 686 A.2d 91 (R.I. 1996) (integration/consideration of instruments incorporated by reference)
- Koziol v. Peerless Insurance Co., 41 A.3d 647 (R.I. 2012) (ambiguities in insurance contracts construed against insurer)
- W.P. Associates v. Forcier, Inc., 637 A.2d 353 (R.I. 1994) (ambiguous writings; extrinsic evidence may aid interpretation)
- Lexington Insurance Co. v. General Accident Insurance Co. of America, 338 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2003) (extrinsic evidence to ascertain mutual intent when policy ambiguous)
- Grun v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 163 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 1998) (look beyond ambiguous language to discern parties’ intent)
- Hill v. M.S. Alper & Son, Inc., 106 R.I. 38 (1969) (mutual intent evidence used to interpret contract terms)