Boston Gas Company v. Century Indemnity

Filing 760

Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. STATEMENT OF REASONS in Support of Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). (Anderson, Jennifer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-12062-PBS
)
)
)
)
)
)

BOSTON GAS COMPANY d/b/a KEYSPAN
ENERGY DELIVERY NEW ENGLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendant.

STATEMENT OF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b)

January 6, 2012
Saris, U.S.D.J.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), this Court submits the
following reasons in support of the Judgment that it entered on
July 19, 2011. See Spiegel v. Trustees of Tufts College, 843 F.2d
38, 43 (1st Cir. 1988) (district court “should ordinarily make
specific findings setting forth the reasons” for entry of
judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b)).

The parties have submitted

joint proposed findings to support the entry of judgment,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), which I adopt.

1

The environmental site that was the subject of the Judgment,
the Commercial Point site claim, was the second environmental
site that the parties tried to verdict. The first site that was
tried, the Everett site claim, previously was appealed directly
to the First Circuit pursuant to Rule 54(b). The First Circuit
issued significant rulings on the Everett appeal, see Boston Gas
Co. v. Century Indem. Co., 529 F. 3d 8 (1st Cir. 2008), and
certified to the Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") the important
issue of how a claim that implicates multiple years should be
allocated among those years. The SJC's ruling on that issue,
Boston Gas v. Century Indem. Co., 454 Mass. 337, 910 N.E. 2d 290
(Mass. 2009), along with the First Circuit's prior decision,
enabled this Court to make certain rulings on remand, and
facilitated a settlement of the Everett site claim.
Guided in part by the First Circuit's 2008 Decision, and the
SJC's allocation ruling, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order
on June 28, 2011, which resolved most of the remaining issues
with respect to the Commercial Point site. This Court vacated the
jury's findings related to the owned property exclusion and
ordered a new trial on that sole issue. Based on this Court's
allocation ruling, the ultimate amount in controversy would have
been less than $200,000, including interest. Boston Gas then
moved for a Rule 54(b) judgment on July 8, 2011, on several
grounds, including that the amount remaining for trial was

2

minimal, and that this Court's ruling in the June 28, 2011
Memorandum and Order concerning the scope of the owned property
exclusion essentially had determined the outcome of the retrial.
Based on the Court's prior rulings, Boston Gas noted that it
would not contest the owned property exclusion issue at the new
trial, but would instead appeal this Court's order granting a new
trial. On July 15, 2011, Boston Gas and Century submitted a
stipulation for entry of a Rule 54(b) judgment, attaching the
proposed Judgment that this Court entered on July 19, 2011.
Although there are 27 sites remaining in the litigation, it
is not clear that there will be the need for a trial for any of
the other 27 sites at issue in this action.
An appeal of the judgment concerning the Commercial Point
site now will implicate issues that will affect both the
Commercial Point claim, and a number of the remaining 27 sites.
These issues include the application of the SJC's ruling on
allocation, including which party has the burden of proof with
respect to the alleged years of the property damage and how that
burden may be satisfied, and how contamination of the air affects
the owned-property exclusion. Appellate resolution of these
issues will assist with resolution of not only the Commercial
Point site but also the remaining 27 sites.
Based on Boston Gas' motion for a Rule 54(b) judgment, this
Court understands that some of the additional issues that Boston
Gas intends to raise on appeal will affect only the Commercial
3

Point site. Nonetheless, the issues set forth above will assist
the resolution of the remaining 27 sites in dispute. In the
context of the Everett site claim, the First Circuit agreed with
this Court's determination that each Boston Gas environmental
site is a separate claim, and that a Rule 54(b) judgment is
appropriate once the legal and factual issues have been
resolved for each site: "[a]ll issues raised concerning the
Everett site have been resolved by the jury and the court, and no
reason exists why judgment as to this site should be delayed."
See Boston Gas Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 02-12062-RWZ,
2006 WL 1738312 *5 (D. Mass. 2006); rev'd in part affd in part,
588 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2009); Boston Gas Co. v. Century Indem.
Co., 529 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2008). The same rationale applies to
Boston Gas' Commercial Point claim. Resolving the Commercial
Point appeal now will save time, conserve judicial resources, and
likely expedite resolution of the remaining sites at issue in
this matter. Thus, “an assessment of the litigation as a whole,
and a weighing of all factors relevant to the desirability of
relaxing the usual prohibition against piecemeal appellate review
in the particular circumstances” counsels in favor of the entry
of the Judgment entered on July 19, 2011. Spiegel v. Trustees of
Tufts College, 843 F.2d 38, 43 (1st Cir. 1988).

/s/ PATTI B. SARIS
PATTI B. SARIS
4