STARR INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY CO v. WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY
1:22-cv-00031
| D. Me. | Feb 20, 2025Background
- Whiting-Turner Contracting Company (WTC) served as the construction manager for a project converting a retail store into a rodent breeding facility for Jackson Laboratory in Maine.
- In late 2020, paint issues were discovered at the facility, and Jackson Lab demanded that WTC fix them, which WTC did at a cost of about $17 million, disputing liability but not pursuing litigation.
- WTC had primary insurance coverage with Travelers ($2 million limit) and excess coverage with Starr Indemnity and Liability Company (Starr).
- WTC timely notified Travelers and later Starr, but by the time Starr was notified, WTC had already completed repairs.
- Starr denied coverage and filed for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify or defend WTC regarding the project; WTC countered only with arguments about Starr’s duty to defend.
- The matter was before the District Court on Starr’s motion for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to Indemnify | No duty to indemnify as WTC was not legally obligated to pay damages (no suit/settlement). | No dispute—conceded duty not triggered. | Starr has no duty to indemnify WTC. |
| Duty to Defend | No “claim or suit seeking damages” existed to trigger defense obligation under policy. | Policy covers "claims" beyond just lawsuits; dispute with Jackson Lab is a "claim." | No duty to defend—no claim or suit seeking damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera-Muriente v. Agosto-Alicea, 959 F.2d 349 (1st Cir. 1992) (Defines genuine dispute for summary judgment)
- Barnie’s Bar & Grill, Inc. v. U.S. Liab. Ins. Co., 152 A.3d 613 (Me. 2016) (Comparison test for duty to defend under insurance policy)
- Ryan v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 916 F.2d 731 (1st Cir. 1990) (Interpretation of insurer's pre-suit duty to defend communications)