Bitco General Insurance Corporation v. J. Burns Brown Operating Co. et al
Filing
71
ORDER ADOPTING 60 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. BITCO's 43 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. J. Burns's 45 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 5/6/2020. (ACC)
Case 4:18-cv-00087-BMM Document 71 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
BITCO GENERAL INSURANCE
CORPORATION,
CV 18-87-GF-BMM-JTJ
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
J. BURNS BROWN OPERATING
CO.,
Defendant.
Plaintiff BITCO General Insurance Corporation (BITCO) brought this action
seeking a declaration that an umbrella insurance policy that BITCO issued to
Defendant J. Burns Brown (J. Burns) does not cover property damage caused by J.
Burns. (Doc. 1 at 8-9.) BITCO and J. Burns each moved for summary judgment.
(Docs. 43 & 45.)
Judge Johnston issued Findings and Recommendations on January 24, 2020.
(Doc. 60.) Judge Johnston determined that the umbrella insurance policy does not
provide coverage for the property damage caused by the pollution at issue in this
case. (Doc. 60 at 8.) Judge Johnston recommends that the Court grant BITCO’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 43) and deny J. Burns’s Motion for
1
Case 4:18-cv-00087-BMM Document 71 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 11
Summary Judgment (Doc. 45). (Doc. 60 at 8.) J. Burns filed objections to Judge
Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations on February 7, 2020. (Doc. 61.)
BITCO filed a response. (Doc. 62.) The Court conducted a hearing on J. Burns’s
objections April 14, 2020. (Doc. 68.)
BACKGROUND
The parties do not dispute the material facts. (Doc. 38 at 6.) J. Burns
operates an oil and gas business in northcentral Montana. An oil-well production
site operated by J. Burns inadvertently released approximately 238 barrels of crude
oil and 1,200 barrels of production water into a tail-water of the North Chinook
Reservoir in Blaine County, Montana, in March 2017. The spill affected almost
five acres of upland and wetland areas. The Montana Department of
Environmental Quality demanded that J. Burns pay the clean-up and remediation
costs associated with the oil spill, which may exceed $1,000,000.
Two BITCO liability insurance policies insured J. Burns when the oil spill
occurred: a Commercial Lines Policy (Primary Policy) (Doc. 7-1); and a
Commercial Umbrella Policy (Umbrella Policy) (Doc. 38-3). The Primary Policy’s
“Contamination or Pollution Coverage” endorsement covered clean-up and
remediation costs associated with the spill. (Doc. 7-1 at 44.) The Primary Policy’s
pollution-coverage limit totaled $100,000. (Id.)
2
Case 4:18-cv-00087-BMM Document 71 Filed 05/06/20 Page 3 of 11
BITCO accepted coverage under the Primary Policy and paid the pollutioncoverage limit of $100,000. (Doc. 38 at 5-6.) J. Burns requested that BITCO
provide further coverage under the Umbrella Policy. (Id. at 6.) The Umbrella
Policy’s liability limit totals $1,000,000, subject to a $10,000 self-insured
retention. (Doc. 38-3 at 6.) BITCO filed this action after receiving J. Burns’s
demand for coverage under the Umbrella Policy. (Doc. 38 at 6.)
Judge Johnston determined that the Umbrella Policy does not provide
coverage for the property damage caused by pollution at issue in this case. (Doc.
60 at 8.) J. Burns objects to Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations.
(Doc. 61.)
DISCUSSION
The Court reviews de novo those Findings and Recommendations to which a
party timely objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court reviews for clear error the
portions of the Findings and Recommendations to which the party did not
specifically object. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc.,
656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
I.
THE POLLUTION POLICY IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS
J. Burns objects to Judge Johnston’s finding that BITCO’s pollution
exclusion, with its stated exception, is clear and unambiguous (Doc. 60 at 7). (Doc.
3
Case 4:18-cv-00087-BMM Document 71 Filed 05/06/20 Page 4 of 11
61 at 2.) An ambiguity exists in an insurance contract when the contract remains
reasonably subject to two different interpretations. Fisher v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co., 305 P.3d 861, 865-55 (Mont. 2013); Jacobsen v. Farmers Union Mut. Ins.
Co., 87 P.3d 995, 997-98 (Mont. 2004). The Court construes ambiguities in favor
of the insured and against the insurer. Marie Deonier & Assoc. v. Paul Revere Life
Ins. Co., 9 P.3d 622, 630 (Mont. 2000). The Court construes narrowly coverage
exclusions “because they are contrary to the fundamental protective purpose of an
insurance policy.” Id. The Court determines whether an ambiguity exists by
viewing the insurance contract through the eyes of a consumer with average
intelligence, not one trained in the law or insurance business. Barnard Pipeline,
Inc. v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of America, 3 F. Supp. 3d 865, 870 (D. Mont.
2014).
The Umbrella Policy provides a broad grant of liability coverage. The
Umbrella Policy states that BITCO will reimburse J. Burns for the “ultimate net
loss in excess of the retained limit because of . . . property damage caused by an
occurrence which takes place during the policy period.” (Doc. 38-3 at 8.) The
Umbrella Policy defines the “retained limit,” in pertinent part, as, “[t]hat amount of
underlying insurance applicable to any claim . . . whether such underlying
insurance is collectible or not.” (Doc. 38-3 at 30.) “Property damage” is “[p]hysical
4
Case 4:18-cv-00087-BMM Document 71 Filed 05/06/20 Page 5 of 11
injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss or use of that property.”
(Doc. 38-3 at 30.) An “occurrence” is “an accident, including continuous or
repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” (Doc. 383 at 29.) The Umbrella Policy would provide coverage for property damage caused
by pollution if the Umbrella Policy did not contain an applicable exclusion.
The Umbrella Policy contains a pollution exclusion, however, that bars
coverage. The Umbrella Policy generally provides that BITCO will not provide
insurance coverage for property damage caused by pollution: no coverage exists
for property damage “arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge,
dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of ‘pollutants.’” (Doc. 38-3 at 40.)
The Umbrella Policy provides one exception to the pollution exclusion.
The Umbrella Policy states that the pollution exclusion does not apply when
insurance for the property damage caused by pollution “is provided by ‘underlying
insurance’ at the limits shown in the schedule of ‘underlying insurance.’”
Coverage for the property damage “is subject to the same limitations as the
‘underlying insurance.’” (Doc. 38-3 at 40.) The Umbrella Policy’s Pollution
Exclusion requires the Court to analyze the meaning of “underlying insurance.”
The Umbrella Policy defines “underlying insurance” in two separate ways.
The Umbrella Policy first defines “underlying insurance” as all coverage “afforded
5
Case 4:18-cv-00087-BMM Document 71 Filed 05/06/20 Page 6 of 11
under insurance policies designated in the schedule of ‘underlying insurance’ on
the Declarations Page of [the Umbrella Policy].” (Doc. 38-3 at 31.) The Umbrella
Policy also defines “underlying insurance” as “any other insurance available to the
insured.” (Id.) This “underlying insurance” available to the insured includes any
policies issued to renew or replace these policies during the policy period that
provide the following coverage: (a) at least the same limits of insurance; and (b) at
least the same coverage. (Id.)
The Court must view the insurance contract through the eyes of a consumer
with average intelligence, rather than one trained in the law or insurance business.
See Barnard Pipeline, 3 F. Supp. 3d at 870. The Court concludes that the Umbrella
Policy’s pollution exclusion, and its exception, are clear and unambiguous. The
Umbrella Policy provides no coverage for property damage caused by pollution
unless the following criteria have been met: (1) the insured has an insurance policy
that is referenced in the Umbrella Policy’s schedule of underlying insurance;
(2) this referenced insurance policy provides coverage for property damage caused
by pollution; and (3) this referenced insurance policy provides coverage for
property damage caused by pollution at a coverage limit that equals or exceeds the
coverage limits listed on the Umbrella Policy’s schedule of underlying insurance.
(See Doc. 38-3 at 40.)
6
Case 4:18-cv-00087-BMM Document 71 Filed 05/06/20 Page 7 of 11
The Court has reviewed de novo Judge Johnston’s findings that the
Umbrella Policy’s pollution exclusion, and its exception, are clear and
unambiguous. The Umbrella Policy’s schedule of underlying insurance refers to
the Primary Policy. (Doc. 38-3 at 6.) This reference to the Primary Policy satisfies
the first criteria. (Doc. 38-3 at 40.) The Primary Policy provides limited coverage
for property damaged by pollution. (Doc. 7-1 at 44.) This coverage satisfies the
second criteria. (Doc. 38-3 at 40.) J. Burns falls short on the third criteria. The
Primary Policy provides coverage only for $100,000 for property damage caused
by pollution. (Doc. 7-1 at 44.) This coverage amount falls well short of coverage
limits of $1,000,000 listed on the Umbrella Policy’s schedule of underlying
insurance. (See Doc. 38-3 at 6.) The Court agrees with Judge Johnston and adopts
his findings.
II.
THE REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS DOCTRINE
J. Burns also objects to Judge Johnston’s failure to consider the “reasonable
expectations” doctrine and its application to this case. (Doc. 61 at 2.) The
reasonable expectations doctrine provides that the “objectively reasonable
expectations of applicants and intended beneficiaries regarding the terms of
insurance contracts will be honored even though painstaking study of the policy
7
Case 4:18-cv-00087-BMM Document 71 Filed 05/06/20 Page 8 of 11
provisions would have negated those expectations.” Barnard Pipeline, 3 F. Supp.
3d at 871 (quoting Fisher, 305 P.3d at 867).
The reasonable expectations doctrine does not apply where the policy’s
terms clearly demonstrate an intent to exclude coverage. Fisher, 305 P.3d at 867.
This interpretation applies because “expectations which are contrary to a clear
exclusion from coverage are not ‘objectively reasonable.’” Am. Family Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Livengood, 970 P.2d 1054, 1059 (Mont. 1998).
The Umbrella Policy’s pollution exclusion, and its exception, clearly
demonstrate an intent to exclude coverage for damage caused by pollution unless
the insured meets three very specific criteria. (See Doc. 38-3 at 40.) J. Burns’s
stated expectation that the Umbrella Policy would cover damage caused by a
pollution event proves contrary to the Umbrella Policy’s clear pollution exclusion
and its exception. J. Burns’s expectation cannot be interpreted as objectively
reasonable under those circumstances.
The parties dispute whether the Umbrella Policy represents a “follow form”
insurance policy. (Doc. 61 at 17-189; Doc. 62 at 17-18.) A “follow form”
insurance policy typically follows the same terms as an underlying policy,
including definitions, conditions, exclusions, and endorsements. National Union
Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Donaldson Company, Inc., 272 F. Supp. 3d 1099,
8
Case 4:18-cv-00087-BMM Document 71 Filed 05/06/20 Page 9 of 11
1103 n.5 (D. Minn. 2017). J. Burns asserts that the Umbrella Policy’s pollution
exclusion “follows form” with the Primary Policy’s underlying coverage. (Doc. 61
at 18.) BITCO views the Umbrella Policy’s pollution exclusion as making clear
that the Umbrella Policy does not cover damage caused by pollution in the same
manner as the Primary Policy. (Doc. 62 at 17-18.)
The Umbrella Policy provides the pollution exclusion in an endorsement at
the end of the Umbrella Policy. The Umbrella Policy titles this endorsement as
“Pollution Exclusion—Follow Form.” (Doc. 38-3 at 40.) The Umbrella Policy’s
pollution exclusion further provides that the pollution exclusion does not apply if
the underlying insurance—here, the Primary Policy—covers the damage at the
limits shown in the schedule of underlying insurance. (Id.) The Umbrella Policy
and the Primary Policy contain different limits for pollution coverage. (Doc. 7-1 at
44; Doc. 38-3 at 6.) The Umbrella Policy’s pollution endorsements and exclusions
differ from those in the Primary Policy. J. Burns cannot assert a legitimate
reasonable expectation that the Umbrella Policy followed the exact same terms as
the Primary Policy, including the Primary Policy’s endorsements and exclusions.
See National Union Fire Ins. Co., 272 F. Supp. 3d at 1103 n.5. The Umbrella
Policy’s pollution exclusion, and its exception, clearly demonstrate an intent to
9
Case 4:18-cv-00087-BMM Document 71 Filed 05/06/20 Page 10 of 11
exclude coverage. See Fisher, 305 P.3d at 867. The Court declines to apply the
reasonable expectations doctrine. See Barnard Pipeline, 3 F. Supp. 3d at 871.
The outcome would not change even if the Court were to apply the
reasonable expectations doctrine. The district court in Barnard Pipeline relied on
the doctrine in construing a term against the insurer. There the policy had failed to
define the term “structure.” Barnard Pipeline, 3 F. Supp. 3d at 872. The parties
disputed whether a company’s work to prepare a right of way for the installation of
a pipeline had transformed the right of way into a “structure” as contemplated by
the policy. Id. The policy’s failure to define “structure” entitled the district court to
look to dictionary definitions. Id. The district court noted that Black’s Law
Dictionary defines “structure” as “[a]ny construction, production, or piece of work
artificially built up or composed of parts purposefully joined together.” Id. (quoting
Black’s Law Dictionary 1559 (9th Ed.)). The district court concluded that the
excavated right of way could not be excluded from the general category of things
falling within the definition of “structure.” Id. at 872.
The Umbrella Policy’s Pollution Exclusion intends to exclude coverage. It
would not be reasonable for a consumer to purchase $100,000 of pollution
coverage under a comprehensive general liability policy and expect an umbrella
policy to provide ten times that coverage unless explicitly stated. The Umbrella
10
Case 4:18-cv-00087-BMM Document 71 Filed 05/06/20 Page 11 of 11
Policy’s Pollution Exclusion applies, as the only “underlying insurance” at issue
here—the Primary Policy—provided only $100,000 in pollution coverage.
The Court reviewed the remainder of Judge Johnston’s Findings and
Recommendations for clear error. The Court finds no error.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 60) are
ADOPTED IN FULL.
2. BITCO’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 43) is GRANTED.
3. J. Burns’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45) is DENIED.
4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
DATED this 6th day of May, 2020.
11
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?