OXFORD AVIATION INC et al v. GLOBAL AEROSPACE INC
Filing
25
DECISION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - denying 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mnw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
OXFORD AVIATION, INC.,
ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS
v.
GLOBAL AEROSPACE, INC.,
DEFENDANT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 2:10-cv-444-DBH
DECISION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is a dispute over whether an insurance company, Global Aerospace,
Inc. (“the Insurer”), has the duty to defend its insured, Oxford Aviation, Inc., in
an underlying lawsuit pending against Oxford Aviation in Oxford County
Superior Court. The plaintiffs, Oxford Aviation and certain of its officers and
employees (collectively, “Oxford Aviation”),1 seek a declaration that the Insurer
has a duty to defend Oxford Aviation in the state court lawsuit, and that its
failure to do so constitutes a breach of contract.
Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13 (Docket
Item 2-1). Oxford Aviation also claims that the Insurer committed an unfair
claims settlement practice in violation of Maine statutory law and seeks
attorneys’ fees.
Id. ¶ 15.
The parties have cross-moved for summary
judgment. Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (Docket Item 11); Def.’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot.
The individual plaintiffs are defendants in the underlying litigation in state court. Compl. ¶ 3
(Docket Item 2-1). They were also either officers or employees of Oxford Aviation at the time of
the events giving rise to the state court litigation. Id.
1
for Summ. J. and Cross-Motion for Summ. J. (“Def.’s Opp’n and Cross-Motion”)
(Docket Item 16). The plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED and the defendant’s motion
is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
(1)
Procedural History
Oxford Aviation refurbishes and repairs aircraft.
Compl. ¶ 2.
Airlarr,
Inc. filed the Oxford County lawsuit against Oxford Aviation alleging, among
other things, that Oxford Aviation’s installation of products on Airlarr’s aircraft
“was seriously deficient and did not meet the terms of the agreement between
the parties.” Airlarr Compl. ¶ 1 (Docket Item 13-1); DSMF ¶ 30; Pls.’ Resp. to
Def.’s Additional Statement of Material Facts (“Pls.’ Resp.”) ¶ 30 (Docket Item
21).
Global Aerospace insured Oxford Aviation under an “Aviation General
Liability Insurance” policy during the relevant period. Notice of Removal ¶ 6
(Docket Item 1); Pls.’ Statement of Material Facts (“PSMF”) ¶ 6 (Docket Item
12); Def.’s Opposing Statement of Material Facts with Additional Facts Not in
Dispute (“DSMF”) ¶ 6 (Docket Item 17).
Oxford Aviation notified Global
Aerospace that it had been sued and requested Global Aerospace to defend it.
PSMF ¶ 7; DSMF ¶ 7. Global Aerospace disclaimed coverage. PSMF ¶ 8; DSMF
¶ 8.
Oxford Aviation then filed this coverage lawsuit in state court. Global
Aerospace removed the lawsuit to federal court based upon diversity of
citizenship. Notice of Removal ¶ 5.
2
(2)
The Underlying Complaint
In the underlying complaint, Airlarr alleges a number of defects in the
products and work supplied by Oxford Aviation to the Airlarr aircraft seeking
recovery for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of express warranties; (3) breach
of implied warranty of merchantability; (4) breach of implied warranty of fitness
for a particular purpose; (5) violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act;
(6) unjust
enrichment;
(7) promissory
estoppel;
(8) fraud;
(9) negligent
misrepresentation; (10) violation of deceptive trade practices in violation of
Maine statutory law; and (11) punitive damages. Airlarr Compl. ¶¶ 23-92. The
alleged defects include improperly installed products on the aircraft, numerous
painting errors, scratches, an air leak around the rear door, inoperable lights,
and a cracked turbocharger. Id. ¶ 18. Airlarr also alleges that the plane’s side
window cracked during flight after leaving Oxford Aviation and attributes the
crack to “negligence and faulty performance of Oxford Aviation.”
Id. ¶ 17.
Airlarr made no claim of personal injury and no claim of damage to any
property other than the aircraft itself. DSMF ¶¶ 36, 37; Pls.’ Resp. ¶¶ 36, 37.
(3)
The Insurance Policy
The Aviation General Liability Insurance Policy (the “Policy”) includes
four types of coverage, two of which are relevant here: Coverage A, “Bodily
Injury and Property Damage Liability” and Coverage D, “Hangarkeepers’
Liability.” Policy at 1-4 (Docket Item 13-4).
Coverage A provides:
We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally
obligated to pay as damages because of . . . property
3
damage to which this insurance applies resulting from your
aviation operations . . .
This insurance applies to . . . property damage only if (1)
The . . . property damage is caused by an occurrence and
takes place in the coverage territory . . .
Policy at 1; PSMF ¶ 10; DSMF ¶ 10. “Occurrence” is defined in the Policy as
“an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the
same general harmful conditions.”
Policy at 20; PSMF ¶ 12; DSMF ¶ 12.
Coverage A expressly excludes certain categories of damage.
Policy at 1-4;
PSMF ¶ 14; DSMF ¶ 14. Among them are:
(j) Property damage to: . . . .(4) Personal property in the
care, custody or control of the insured; . . . (6) That
particular part of any property that must be restored,
repaired or replaced because your work was incorrectly
performed on it.
(k) Property damage to your product arising out of it or any
part of it;
(l) Property damage to your work arising out of it or any
part of it and included in the products-completed
operations hazard;
(m) Property damage to impaired property or property that
has not been physically injured, arising out of (1) a defect,
deficiency, inadequacy or dangerous condition in your
product or your work; or (2) a delay or failure by you or
anyone acting on your behalf to perform a contract or
agreement in accordance with its terms. This exclusion (m)
does not apply to the loss of use of other property arising
out of a sudden and accidental physical injury to your
product or your work after it has been put to its intended
use.
Id. “Your product” is defined in the Policy to include “[a]ny goods or products,
other than real property, manufactured, sold, handled or disposed of by
[Oxford Aviation].” Policy at 21; PSMF ¶ 12; DSMF ¶ 12. “Products-completed
operation hazard” is defined in the Policy to include “all . . . property damage
4
occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of your product
or your work. . . .”
Policy at 20; DSMF ¶ 25; Pls.’ Resp. ¶ 25.
“Impaired
property” is defined as:
tangible property, other than your product or your work,
that cannot be used or is less useful because (a) [i]t
incorporates your product or your work that is known or
thought to be defective, deficient, inadequate or dangerous;
or (b) [y]ou have failed to fulfill the terms of a contract or
agreement; if such property can be restored to use by:
(c) [t]he repair, replacement, adjustment or removal of your
product or your work; or (d) [y]our fulfilling the terms of the
contract or agreement.
Policy at 17-18; PSMF ¶ 8; DSMF ¶ 8.
Under the Hangarkeepers’ Liability coverage (Coverage D), Global
Aerospace agrees to “pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated
to pay as damages because of loss to aircraft . . . occurring while such aircraft
is in the care, custody or control of the insured for safekeeping, storage, service
or repair.” Policy at 7; PSMF ¶ 11; DSMF ¶ 11. By the express terms of the
Policy, Coverage D does not apply to the “insured’s liability under any
agreement to be responsible for loss,” “[l]oss to your work arising out of it or
any part of it,” and “[l]oss to aircraft while in flight.” Policy at 7; DSMF ¶ 29;
Pls.’ Resp. ¶ 29. The Policy defines “Loss” as “an accident resulting in direct
damage to tangible property, including continuous or repeated exposure to
substantially the same general harmful conditions.” Policy at 19; PSMF ¶ 12;
DSMF ¶ 12.
ANALYSIS
Under Maine law, whether an insurer has a duty to defend is determined
by comparing the allegations in the underlying complaint with the provisions of
5
the insurance policy. York Golf and Tennis Club v. Tudor Ins. Co., 845 A.2d
1173, 1175 (Me. 2004).
“The duty to defend arises if there is any potential
basis for recovery against the insured and the recovery is an insured risk.” Id.
See also Auto Europe, LLC v. Conn. Indemnity Co., 321 F.3d 60, 66 (1st Cir.
2003) (“If the complaint shows even a possibility that the events giving rise to it
are within the policy coverage, the insurer must defend the suit.”) (quoting
Mass. Bay Ins. Co. v. Ferraiolo Constr. Co., 584 A.2d 608, 609 (Me.1990)).
Maine law extends the insurer’s duty to defend to claims “that could be
developed either legally or factually at trial so as to fall within the policy’s
coverage,” Auto Europe, LLC, 321 F.3d at 68, but a court may not “speculate
about causes of action that were not stated.” York Golf and Tennis Club, 845
A.2d at 1175.
Coverage A
Global Aerospace argues that its Policy does not provide coverage for the
claims in the underlying state lawsuit against Oxford Aviation because Airlarr’s
complaint “does not present any claim for ‘physical injury to tangible
property,’” does not allege damages that arose from an “accident,” and because
all of the alleged damages relate to improper and inadequate repairs by Oxford
Aviation and therefore fall within the scope of the Policy’s exclusions. Def.’s
Opp’n and Cross-Motion at 12. Oxford Aviation concedes that the Policy does
not cover all of the claims in the underlying complaint, but argues that some
are potentially within the Policy’s coverage and that it is therefore entitled to a
defense in the underlying lawsuit.
6
I agree with Global Aerospace that “each of the Counts asserted in the
Airlarr Complaint relate entirely to deficiencies in Oxford Aviation’s work and
product, and thus are excluded from coverage by operation of [the Policy’s
Exclusions].” Def.’s Opp’n and Cross Motion at 12. Exclusion (j) excludes all
property damage to “personal property in the care, custody, or control of the
insured,” applicable while Oxford Aviation had the aircraft. Policy at 3-4; PSMF
¶ 14; DSMF ¶ 14.
Exclusion (k) precludes coverage for property damage to
“your product arising out of it or any part of it” and applies to the alleged
defects in the products that Oxford Aviation sold and installed in Airlarr’s
aircraft. Policy at 4; PSMF ¶ 14; DSMF ¶ 14. (The Airlarr Complaint provides a
list of these alleged defects in paragraph 18. Airlarr Compl. ¶ 18 (identifying
defects and substandard work in the “products and work supplied by Oxford
Aviation”).)
Exclusion (l) precludes coverage for “[p]roperty damage to your
work arising out of it or any part of it and included in the products-completed
operations hazard.” Id. “Products-completed operations hazard” includes all
“property damage occurring away from premises you own or rent,” here any
damages after Airlarr took the aircraft from Oxford Aviation.
DSMF ¶ 25; Pls.’ Resp. ¶ 25.
Policy at 20;
The Policy defines “[y]our work” as “[w]ork or
operations performed by you or on your behalf” and as “[m]aterials, parts or
equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations.” Policy at
21; PSMF ¶ 12; DSMF ¶ 12.
Finally, exclusion (m) excludes “[p]roperty damage to impaired property
or property that has not been physically injured, arising out of a defect,
deficiency, inadequacy or dangerous condition in your product or your work.”
7
Policy at 4; PSMF ¶ 14; DSMF ¶ 14.
“Impaired property means tangible
property, other than your product or your work, that cannot be used or is less
useful because (a) it incorporates your product or your work that is known or
thought to be defective, deficient, inadequate or dangerous, or (b) you have
failed to fulfill the terms of a contract or agreement . . . .”
Policy at 17-18;
PSMF ¶ 8; DSMF ¶ 8. This exclusion precludes coverage for the alleged crack
in the side window of the Airlarr plane that occurred during flight after leaving
Oxford Aviation. The Airlarr Complaint specifically alleges that the crack arose
from a deficiency in Oxford Aviation’s work. Compl. ¶ 17 (crack in the plane’s
side window “was attributable to negligence and faulty performance of Oxford
Aviation”).
Together, these four exclusions remove coverage for all the damages that
Airlarr is seeking from Oxford Aviation on account of its repairs to the aircraft.
Coverage D
Coverage D covers claims for accidental damage to aircraft while the
aircraft is in the care, custody, or control of the insured for service or repair. It
specifically excludes coverage for defects in the repairs themselves, the subject
of
Airlarr’s
Complaint.
Although
Oxford
Aviation
agrees
that
the
Hangarkeepers’ Liability coverage is designed to cover claims for accidental
damage, it argues that there is no basis to conclude that some of the alleged
items of physical damage (specifically, the cut in the stabilizer boot, hole in the
antenna, and cracking in the turbocharger) actually resulted from defects in
the repairs it performed, and therefore that there might be hangarkeepers’
coverage. Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 14; Pls.’ Reply at 11-12 (Docket Item 20).
8
Oxford Aviation cites Auto Europe, LLC, 321 F.3d at 68, where, the First
Circuit held that even “where a narrow reading of the complaint’s factual
allegations might preclude coverage,” Maine law entitles the insured to a
defense if the “alleged cause of action is sufficiently broad that a modified
version of the facts could be developed at trial to show liability.”2 But Airlarr’s
cause of action in this underlying lawsuit makes no claim that Oxford Aviation
is responsible for property damage not caused by its repairs and services.
Instead, the litany of counts in the underlying complaint―e.g., breach of
contract, breach of express warranties, fraud―all relate to Airlarr’s allegation
that Oxford Aviation performed substandard work, and Maine Law is clear that
I cannot consider unasserted causes of action. York Golf and Tennis Club, 845
A.2d at 1175. See also Auto Europe, LLC, 321 F.3d at 68 (no duty to defend
“when the cause of action alleged as the basis for liability . . . include[s]
elements that would foreclose coverage”).
Thus, I find that the Global
Aerospace does not have a duty to defend Oxford Aviation under the
Hangarkeepers’ Liability coverage.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Policy language and the underlying complaint by Airlarr,
I find that there is no coverage under either Coverage A (Bodily Injury and
Property
Damage
Liability)
or
Coverage
D
(Hangarkeepers’
Liability).
2 The First Circuit then found a duty to defend based on the possibility that the facts as
developed at trial would establish a non-intentional violation of the Maine Unfair Trade
Practices Act, even though the underlying complaint only alleged intentional fraud (intentional
fraud was within an exclusion of the relevant insurance policy). Auto Europe, LLC, 321 F.3d at
66-68 (stating that “even if a jury rejected the . . . plaintiffs’ precise theory deliberate
misrepresentation, they would retain the possibility of recovery . . .”).
9
Accordingly, I DENY the plaintiffs’ motion and GRANT the defendant’s motion for
summary judgment. As a result, Oxford Aviation’s request for attorney fees in
connection with unfair claims settlement practice is MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?