Tropigas De Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters, 637 F.3d 53

Tropigas de Puerto Rico, Inc. (plaintiff) purchased fourteen large underground storage tanks and had Lloyd's issue a certificate of insurance covering loss or damage from external causes.
Coverage attached at dockside in Houston, continued during sea transit, and ceased upon berthing in San Juan; unloading was not covered.
Marine survey in Houston found no damage during loading; tanks were later damaged (warped/deformed) after installation in Puerto Rico.
Plaintiff claimed damage occurred during loading in Houston or during marine transport; Lloyd's denied, contending damage occurred outside the coverage period.
District court granted summary judgment for Lloyd's, adopting a view that plaintiff failed to prove the loss occurred within the policy period; plaintiff appealed.
The First Circuit reviews de novo and construes the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did plaintiff raise a genuine issue that damage occurred within coverage?	Tanks were damaged during loading or transport within policy period.	Survey showed no damage during loading; damage occurred outside coverage.	No genuine issue; damage not shown within coverage period.
Did district court properly handle plaintiff's supplemental/fact statements under Local Rule 56?	Supplemental facts should be admitted and considered.	Supplemental facts are either non-material or speculative; not admissible to defeat summary judgment.	No reversible error; supplemental facts did not raise a genuine issue.

Pagano v. Frank, 983 F.2d 343 (1st Cir. 1993) (burden on movant to show absence of genuine issue; definite, competent evidence required)
McCarthy v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 56 F.3d 313 (1st Cir. 1995) (summary judgment standard; favorable view to nonmovant)
Suarez v. Pueblo International, Inc., 229 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2000) (summary judgment—facts viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Rogan v. City of Boston, 267 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2001) (avoidance of speculative inferences; conclusory evidence insufficient)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986) (summary judgment burden; evidence must be significantly probative)
Mesnick v. General Electric Co., 950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir. 1991) (possibilities alone insufficient to create genuine issue)
Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano-Isern, 605 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (materiality of facts; inference must be probative, not speculative)
Kelly v. United States, 924 F.2d 355 (1st Cir. 1991) (evidence must be more than colorable or not significantly probative)
Fajardo Shopping Center, S.E. v. Sun Alliance Ins. Co., 167 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (burden on insured to show policy in effect and loss covered)