Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Lynch and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Landy
This
Nevertheless, California
economic
"failed
advantage.
to
act
Specifically,
CRES
reasonable
care,"
with
asserted
that
including
Landy
"in
the
It further
the
policy.
In
response,
Utica
filed
this
action
in
parties
dispute
the
meaning
of
two
policy
Utica
argues that CRES's negligence claim did not arise from alleged
errors in Landy's professional insurance services, but rather from
Landy's allegedly unfair business practices.
that the two are not mutually exclusive:
Landy's position is
the
policy
expressly
excludes
coverage
for
misconduct
exclusions,
the
unfair
competition
claim
as
just
such
of
negligent
unfair
competition.
Landy disagrees for two reasons.
misleads
consumers,
and
the
CRES
complaint
includes
no
It held
that the policy required Utica to defend Landy in the CRES lawsuit
because CRES's negligence claim arose out of Landy's allegedly
negligent performance of professional services, and because the
exclusion for unfair competition did not cover CRES's negligence
claim.
II. Analysis
We review summary judgment decisions de novo.
Batista
Id. at 42.
Ins. Co., 489 F.3d 71, 72 (1st Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Generally the insured bears the initial burden of establishing
coverage, while the insurer bears the burden on exclusions from
coverage.
2012).
- 7 -
the
Massachusetts
court
construes
Id. at 671.
- 8 -
insurance
example,
business
management
activities,
business
- 9 -
profession.
Lines Ins. Co., 142 F.3d 512, 514-16 (1st Cir. 1998).
While these
other acts may "set the stage" for the performance of professional
services, they are not themselves professional services and thus
are
not
covered
by
most
professional
liability
policies.
and
it
is
therefore
covered
by
the
policy.
CRES's
As described by Landy:
"Placing" a real estate agents and brokers
errors
and
omissions
insurance
policy
typically involves, among other things,
understanding the type and extent of coverage
a particular applicant needs; determining what
endorsements
may
be
appropriate
for
a
particular applicant; determining whether a
particular insurer is a good match for the
particular applicant; rating the applicant and
determining what the premium should be in
light of the applicant's potential exposure,
claims history, and level of coverage;
determining what regulatory requirements must
be met if a particular applicant is placed
with a particular insurer; and making certain
that required regulatory filings are properly
made. . . .
Landy employees were trained, either through
formal education or through experience in the
insurance industry or both, to, among other
things,
evaluate
the
complexity
of
transactions applicants typically handle,
investigate and evaluate the claims histories
of
applicants,
evaluate
the
level
of
experience of applicants' licensed sales
staffs, investigate applicants' relationships
with and degree of control over independent
contractors
and
part-time
employees,
investigate the extent to which an applicant's
service
and
operations
or
syndication
activities may affect coverage expectations,
identify and understand specialized statutes
and regulations that are relevant to placement
of coverage for the applicant with particular
insurers, and evaluate the adequacy of filings
- 11 -
Cal. Ins.
are
these
activities
ones
not
requiring
profession.
Finally,
there
is
no
claim
that
these
Cf.,
gravamen
unfair
of
the
CRES
complaint
was
Landy's
business
both
profession
and
business.
Naturally
then,
some
Such is
- 13 -
Second,
Utica
suggests
that
professional
liability
and
marketing
services"
covered
false
advertising
The
whose
services."
Id.
by competitors."
clients
hire
them
to
provide
professional
1102).
That general observation is unexceptional, but it is not
a categorical rule.
do
not
cover
competitor
suits
alleging
negligent
business
The gauge
See
id.
Relatedly, Utica argues that the policy does not apply
because Landy did not breach any professional duties owed to CRES.
- 14 -
It
is
true
that
CRES
did
not
allege
that
Landy
breached
Cas. & Sur. Co., 839 F.2d 979, 984 (3d Cir. 1988).
And there is
the
acts'
policy
.
professional services."
covers
in
losses
rendering
or
"aris[ing]
failing
to
out
of
render
injuries
actually
professional
caused
services.
by
Landy's
CRES
need
wrongful
not
allege
performance
of
any
of
breach
of
any
to
the
type,"
policy's
Utica
exclusion
has
not
some
Massachusetts
courts
met
for
its
"unfair
burden
of
In construing insurance
have
interpreted
"unfair
- 15 -
by the cases above, this means "any type" of "conduct that causes
confusion on the part of consumers."8
did not allege consumer confusion.
We disagree.
whatever
kind.");
see
also
any,
Webster's
Third
New
have
an
"expansive"
meaning,
it
does
not
have
Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2034, 2042 (2012); see also Ali, 552 U.S. at 220
n.4.
For
example,
"any
type
of
fruit"
includes
apples,
It does
the
provision
here
should
be
construed
See Lodge
Corp. v. Assurance Co. of Am., 775 N.E.2d 1250, 1252 n.4 (Mass.
App. Ct. 2002) ("technical terms and words of art are given their
technical meaning when used in a transaction within their technical
field" (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts 202(3)(b)
(1981))).
At the very
- 17 -
surplusage.
Under
this
canon,
"[e]very
word
in
an
assuming
that
the
provision
embraces
forms
of
As the
However, some
courts have expanded the term beyond its common law meaning to
include "confusion as to sponsorship, endorsement, or some other
affiliation."
Id.
To restate, the
CRES lawsuit did not allege any kind of consumer confusion, whether
intentional or negligent.10
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.