United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-2072
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Torruella, Circuit Judge.
Alan L. Briggs with whom James P. Wehner, Amy L. Easton,
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P., George W. Walker, III, Lee H.
Copeland and Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A. were on brief
for appellant.
Mariann Zampano Malay, Dwight D. Valentine, Niarchos,
Sullivan, Valentine & Malay, Walter Andrews, Lon Berk, Paul
Janaskie, Lara Ramsey and Shaw Pittman on brief for St. Paul
Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Amicus Curiae.
Erik Lund, Vincent M. Amoroso and Posternak, Blankstein &
Lund, LLP on brief for First State Insurance Company, Amicus
Curiae.
James E. Harvey, Jr. with whom Kevin D. McElaney, John F.
Brosnan and O'Malley and Harvey, LLP were on brief for appellee.
August 15, 2001
BOUDIN, Chief Judge. This appeal grows out of a
lengthy and complex dispute over commercial liability insurance
coverage. At odds are the insured, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co. ("MetLife")1 and one of its insurers, Liberty Mutual
Insurance Co. ("Liberty"). MetLife claims that Liberty had a
duty to defend and indemnify MetLife in numerous lawsuits
relating to the marketing of life insurance policies and real
estate investments. Liberty refused coverage and prevailed in
the district court. MetLife now appeals.
I. BACKGROUND
The origins of this dispute lie in twenty-seven
lawsuits brought against MetLife by dissatisfied customers. The
lawsuits fall into three groups:
• Sixteen individual "vanishing premium" lawsuits
in Alabama state courts (the "Alabama cases");
• Nine nationwide "vanishing premium" class
actions in federal court (the "class actions");
and
• Two real estate investment cases arising out of
dealings with Copley Real Estate Advisors, a
MetLife subsidiary (the "real estate cases").
1
MetLife is the successor corporation to the original
insured, New England Mutual Insurance Co. MetLife merged with
New England Mutual in 1996 and, for simplicity's sake, this
decision refers throughout to MetLife.
-2-
MetLife claims that the Commercial (previously "Comprehensive")
General Liability Insurance ("CGL") and Umbrella Excess
Liability Insurance ("UEL") policies that it purchased from
Liberty require that Liberty defend and indemnify MetLife. We
describe each group of lawsuits in turn.
The Alabama Cases. From late 1994 through 1996,
sixteen individuals filed suit against MetLife in Alabama state
courts claiming that MetLife sales representatives had
negligently or intentionally made misrepresentations concerning
MetLife's life insurance policies. In particular, the lawsuits
charged that representatives had told buyers that if they
reinvested their yearly life insurance dividends, their
obligation to pay premiums would "vanish" after eight to ten
years. In fact, the buyers' payment obligations continued. The
Alabama plaintiffs claimed that as a result of MetLife's actions
they suffered monetary damages and mental anguish.
Beginning in December 1994, MetLife began tendering
the Alabama cases to Liberty. Based on the plaintiffs' "mental
anguish" claims, MetLife argued that Liberty had a duty to
defend and indemnify MetLife because its CGL policy included
coverage for "personal injury" claims. Initially, Liberty
agreed to defend the claims, but eventually it concluded that
-3-
the policies did not afford any coverage and notified MetLife
that it would neither defend nor indemnify.
In the litigation with the Alabama plaintiffs, MetLife
eventually paid legal fees of approximately $450,000 and settled
15 of the 16 suits for roughly $2.7 million. The last suit was
still pending when the present federal action was heard.
MetLife seeks to hold Liberty liable for both the defense costs
and the settlement payments.
The Class Actions. The second group of suits also
arose from customer complaints about vanishing premiums.
Beginning in October 1995, class actions were filed in various
federal and state courts against MetLife; all recited claims
that were similar to those in the Alabama cases. The federal
class actions were consolidated in the federal district court in
Massachusetts. The consolidated complaint alleged inter alia
that MetLife's misdescription of the vanishing premium concept
comprised "unfair competition," violating the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, §§ 2, 9
(2000).
MetLife tendered the class action cases to Liberty on
the ground that the CGL policy provided coverage for claims of
unfair competition arising out of advertising. The advertising
to which MetLife pointed were the computer-generated
-4-
illustrations it used during the vanishing premium sales
meetings with customers. Liberty declined to defend the class
actions or indemnify MetLife. MetLife spent more than $4
million in legal fees to defend the suits. Subsequent to its
decision in this case, the district court approved a $155
million settlement for the class actions.
The Real Estate Cases. The final group of lawsuits
stemmed from MetLife's sale of commercial real estate interests
to two state pension fund boards. In 1987, Copley Real Estate
Advisors, a MetLife subsidiary, sold $450 million worth of
commercial real estate to the Washington State Investment Board
(the "Washington board") and $50 million worth of real estate to
the Ohio State Teachers Retirement Board (the "Ohio board").
Washington also bought other real estate interests controlled by
MetLife--one set of investments between 1984 and 1990 for about
$185 million and another set between 1986 and 1988 for about $65
million.
As national real estate markets declined in the late
1980s, the investments quickly lost much of their value. In
1993, Washington and Ohio sued MetLife in state court suits
alleging numerous wrongs; one set of claims was that MetLife had
misrepresented the risks, fees, and other material aspects of
the investments. In June 1995, MetLife notified Liberty of the
-5-
Washington and Ohio lawsuits. Because the false statements
complained of by the Washington and Ohio boards appeared in
MetLife's written promotional material, MetLife said that the
suits were covered by both the CGL and UEL policies' advertising
injury clauses.
Liberty concluded that it would not defend or indemnify
MetLife as to any of these real estate suits; it said that the
promotional materials were not advertising and, further, that
coverage was excluded under the policies' "insurance and related
operations exclusion" ("IROE"). MetLife subsequently incurred
nearly $7.75 million in legal expenses in the two suits and
settled both actions; the Washington claim settled for almost
$120 million. The record does not indicate the amount of the
Ohio settlement.
The Policies. MetLife purchased eleven separate CGL
policies (1985-96) and three separate UEL policies (1986-89);
each policy covered a single year. The UEL policies provide
higher liability limits. The coverage provisions are, so far as
pertinent here, the same except where otherwise indicated. The
key policy provisions in dispute are included in an appendix to
this opinion.
The UEL and CGL policies provided coverage, subject to
exclusions, for several broad categories of liability. As
-6-
already noted, the liabilities for which MetLife sought coverage
stemmed from MetLife's alleged misrepresentations in selling
vanishing premium insurance to consumers and its alleged
misrepresentations in the sale of real estate interests to the
Washington and Ohio boards. To establish coverage, MetLife
mainly relied on provisions covering so-called "advertising
injury," a phrase defined slightly differently in the CGL and
UEL policies. Further, in the Alabama cases, MetLife also
relied on a coverage provision for "personal injury," which was
contained in the CGL policies, but not the UEL policies.
In addition to disputing initial coverage, the main
exclusion invoked by Liberty was the multi-part IROE exclusion
from both personal injury and advertising liability, captioned
"insurance and related operations." The IROE, which was present
in the CGL policies between 1985 and 1988 and all of the UEL
policies, contains two paragraphs pertinent here: one excluding
claims concerning insurance or annuities, and another excluding
injury or liability resulting from professional services in
effecting insurance, the conduct of an investment or acting as
a fiduciary for pension or welfare funds.
The District Court Proceedings. In June 1997, after
Liberty had refused to defend or indemnify in all three sets of
suits against MetLife, MetLife brought a state-court declaratory
-7-
judgment action against Liberty in Alabama seeking defense and
indemnification for the twenty-seven lawsuits. Liberty
countered by filing its own declaratory judgment action in the
federal district court in Massachusetts, asserting that it had
no duty to defend or indemnify MetLife. After the district
court denied MetLife's motion to dismiss or stay the federal
action in deference to MetLife's Alabama action, MetLife filed
a counterclaim in federal court to establish coverage in all
three groups of suits.
Over the next two years, the district court supervised
extensive discovery, heard numerous motions, and conducted a
lengthy trial. Although the trial began with MetLife ready to
try its claims as to all three sets of lawsuits, in the end the
claims submitted to the jury were greatly narrowed by two sets
of rulings by the district court during trial--rulings that give
rise to two of the three main issues pressed by MetLife on this
appeal.
For the class action cases, MetLife asserted coverage
on the ground that the misrepresentations charged in those cases
fell within the advertising injury coverage of the Liberty
policies. Its theory of coverage under the CGL policies relied
on the fact that the master complaint in the consolidated
Massachusetts class action against MetLife included a cause of
-8-
action for unfair competition under chapter 93A, and the CGL
policies included "unfair competition" within the definition of
"advertising injury."2
In a motion for summary judgment, Liberty asserted that
the CGL policy only covered claims of unfair competition when
they involved injury to an insured's competitors, and it invoked
Massachusetts case law interpreting similar insurance clauses.
The district court denied Liberty's motion for a variety of
reasons, but its decision did not squarely address the merits of
Liberty's claim regarding unfair competition. Liberty Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 53 F. Supp. 2d 529, 533-34 (D.
Mass. 1999). Liberty also failed in other efforts to forestall
trial on coverage for the class action suits.
On January 24, 2000, the first day of trial, Liberty
renewed its argument in a motion in limine to preclude MetLife
from claiming any coverage for, or presenting any evidence
relating to, the unfair competition claim arising from the class
action suits. To MetLife's surprise, the district court
provisionally agreed with Liberty and prohibited MetLife from
2 The UEL policies did not include "unfair competition" as a
form of advertising injury, but included in the definition other
language not appearing in the CGL, namely, coverage for any
"negligent act, error or omission in the use of advertising or
merchandising ideas." As to the UEL policies, MetLife relied on
this latter language to establish coverage.
-9-
making any mention of unfair competition coverage in its opening
argument. MetLife was never able to persuade the court to alter
its position, so no evidence relating to unfair competition
coverage was presented at trial.
The district court's other contested ruling, which cut
even deeper, concerned MetLife's failure to allocate its damages
in a manner satisfactory to the district court. The issue first
arose when MetLife made a proffer of testimony of its in-house
counsel, Robert Jordan. In cross examining Jordan, Liberty
elicited the fact that some of the damages presented by MetLife
might be attributed to defense and settlement costs paid by
MetLife on behalf of its independent sales agents, who were not
covered by Liberty's insurance. The court expressed concern
that MetLife did not intend to allocate its damages between
these uninsured agents and the insured principal or between
c o v e r e d a n d u n c o v e r e d c l a i m s .
On the fifth day of the trial, the district judge
returned to this issue when he discussed the parties' proposed
jury instructions. The district judge advised the parties that:
[I]f MetLife is only able to establish that there
is a policy coverage for a small minority of the
total of the claims within a particular lawsuit,
the idea that that triggers a duty to defend the
whole lawsuit at Liberty Mutual's expense
entirely and also a duty to bear the costs of
-10-
settlement is, I think, going to be out of
bounds.
Because MetLife had not yet attempted to present its damages
evidence, the district court did not rule on whether and how
MetLife would have to allocate its damages.
On two occasions thereafter, the district court
prohibited MetLife from presenting evidence of damages. On the
first occasion, the district court disallowed evidence of
defense costs in the real estate cases on the ground that it did
not properly allocate costs between the Washington and Ohio
lawsuits and between covered and uncovered claims within the
Washington case; it also disallowed evidence of the Washington
settlement on the ground that the settlement figure did not
allocate between covered and uncovered claims. On the second
occasion, the district court did not allow evidence of MetLife's
legal bills for the Alabama cases and the class actions on the
ground that the bills were not relevant until they were
established as necessary by an expert witness.
At the close of all evidence the district court
suggested that MetLife might reopen its case for the purpose of
presenting damages evidence that allocated defense and
settlement costs between covered and not covered matters.
However, when MetLife continued to proffer damages evidence in
-11-
unallocated form, the district court ultimately refused to allow
MetLife to reopen the damages issue. As a result of the
district court's preclusion of damages evidence, none of the
damage claims as to any of the three sets of lawsuits were
submitted to the jury.
In the end, because of the district court's rulings,
the jury was asked to determine only whether Liberty had a
future duty to defend or indemnify a single Alabama lawsuit
(Loudermilch) that had not yet been resolved and whether it had
a future duty to defend or indemnify the still pending class
action lawsuits under the UEL policy (but not under the CGL
policy, since the court had already rejected coverage based on
its reading of the unfair competition language). None of the
claims based on the real estate cases were submitted to the jury
because MetLife conceded that it had not made out its prima
facie case since its damages evidence had been excluded.
After deliberating for several days, the jury found
that Liberty did not have a duty to defend or indemnify MetLife
on any of the claims submitted to the jury regarding Loudermilch
or the class action cases. In doing so, the jury answered 133
special questions that detailed its reasoning. The jury found
inter alia that the Loudermilch case was not covered by the CGL
policy's "personal injury" clause, that the class actions were
-12-
not covered by the UEL policy's "advertising injury" clause, and
that numerous exclusions barred MetLife from recovering defense
or settlement costs for both sets of lawsuits.
On April 12, 2000, the district court issued a judgment
in favor of Liberty on all counts, including those that had not
been submitted to the jury. In an accompanying unreported
opinion, the court explained why certain questions had not been
submitted to the jury and why it had ruled against MetLife on
those issues. In particular, the court further explicated its
ruling on the class action lawsuits' unfair competition claim,
the need to allocate damages, and the general scope of Liberty's
duty to defend.
II. DISCUSSION
MetLife now appeals and makes three claims of error:
that the district court incorrectly placed the burden of
allocating defense and indemnity costs between covered and non-
covered matters on the insured, thus effectively preventing
MetLife from presenting its damages evidence; that the district
court erred by not permitting MetLife to seek coverage for the
class actions' unfair competition claims; and that the district
court erroneously instructed the jury as to how it should
interpret exclusionary clauses in the insurance policies.
-13-
We address MetLife's arguments in turn, applying de
novo review to questions of law. Speen v. Crown Clothing Corp.,
102 F.3d 625, 628 (1st Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1276
(1997). Included in this category is the interpretation of the
insurance policies where relevant facts are not in dispute.
U.S. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Bourbeau, 49 F.3d 786, 787 (1st Cir.
1995). The parties agree that this diversity action is governed
by the substantive law of Massachusetts.
The Alabama Cases. Two of MetLife's three claimed
errors are implicated in the Alabama cases: the exclusion of
damages evidence because of the district court's ruling on
allocation and the district court's jury instruction on
interpreting exclusionary clauses. Yet the jury's special
verdict specifically rejected coverage for the single Alabama
lawsuit that it did consider (Loudermilch). There is no reason
to think that the result would have been any different if claims
based on the other fifteen Alabama lawsuits had been submitted
to the jury.
The Loudermilch case was decided by the jury because,
unlike the other fifteen Alabama lawsuits, the exclusion of
MetLife's damages evidence did not undermine MetLife's claim
that Liberty had a continuing duty to defend and indemnify.
Thus, the jury was asked:
-14-
With respect to the duty to defend, was any
of the claims that a policyholder made against
MetLife in any of the lawsuits that various
policyholders brought against MetLife a claim
within the scope of a liability insurance
coverage as defined in the coverage provisions of
any of the various policies in evidence that
Liberty Mutual issued to MetLife (or New
England)?
To this, the jury answered "no," thus rejecting any coverage for
the Loudermilch lawsuit independent of the exclusionary clauses.
Because the duty to defend is broader than the duty to
indemnify, Ruggerio Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Grange Mut.
Ins. Co., 724 N.E.2d 295, 298 (Mass. 2000), the jury's finding
also negates a duty to indemnify. Bagley v. Monticello Ins.
Co., 720 N.E.2d 813, 817 (Mass. 1999).
The Loudermilch jury verdict against MetLife makes
MetLife's claimed errors harmless. See Brandt v. Wand Partners,
242 F.3d 6, 16-17 (1st Cir. 2001); Fite v. Digital Equip. Corp.,
232 F.3d 3, 6 (1st Cir. 2000). As MetLife conceded in its
proposed jury instructions, all of the Alabama suits involved
"substantially similar claims." A review of the sixteen
complaints confirms this: many are identical and all charge
MetLife with the same improper conduct and rely on the same
legal theories for recovery. And, since Loudermilch failed
inter alia for lack of initial coverage, the result is
-15-
unaffected by any alleged error in instructing the jury as to
exclusions.
In its reply brief, MetLife argues that Liberty has
failed to show that the Alabama cases "are so similar that some
form of estoppel should apply." Its sole support for this
position is to say: "Indeed, they are not." In any event,
estoppel is not the issue; the question is whether there is any
reason to believe that the claims as to the fifteen lawsuits
would have been resolved differently than the sixteenth lawsuit.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 61; Fed. R. Evid. 103; Nieves-Villanueva v.
Soto-Rivera, 133 F.3d 92, 102 (1st Cir. 1997). We have been
given no reason to think that they would.
The Class Actions. In the case of the class action
lawsuits, two of MetLife's three claims of error are relevant:
the district court's decision not to allow MetLife to invoke
unfair competition and the jury instruction on interpreting
exclusionary clauses. However, as with the Alabama lawsuits,
the jury verdict saves us from juxtaposing state unfair
competition law with policy coverage because any supposed error
made by the district court was (once again) harmless.
Although the district court prohibited MetLife from
arguing that the class action lawsuits were covered by the CGL
policy's advertising injury clause, it permitted MetLife to
-16-
claim coverage under the same clause in the UEL policy because,
as already noted (see note 2, above), the two policies included
different definitions of advertising injury. One of the
questions the jury was asked was whether:
the use of [MetLife] illustrations by sales
agents of [MetLife], as alleged in the underlying
class action complaints, constitute[d]
advertising as used in the 1986-1989 [UEL]
policies.
To this, the jury answered "no."
Where there is no advertising there can be no
advertising injury. The policy language expressly requires that
an injury arise from the "insured's advertising activities."
MetLife conceded as much when it said in its proposed jury
instructions that the first element of advertising injury under
both the CGL and UEL policies was the existence of "an
advertising activity" "committed by" MetLife. See also N.H.
Ins. Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., Inc., 847 F. Supp. 1452,
1455 (N.D. Cal. 1994).
The problem for MetLife is that the jury's conclusion--
that the illustrations used by MetLife's agents were not
"advertising" under the UEL policies--applies with equal force
to MetLife's claim for coverage under the CGL policies.
Although the CGL claim did not go to the jury, the illustrations
in question are the same as those in the UEL claim. The only
-17-
difference between the two claims was the type of wrong alleged
to have been caused by the illustrations; under the CGL the
wrong was unfair competition, whereas under the UEL it was a
"negligent act, error or omission."
Thus, even if we assume that the district court misread
Massachusetts unfair competition law and mistakenly precluded
MetLife's claim for coverage under the CGL policy, that error
was harmless because there is no practical likelihood that the
CGL claim could have succeeded when the UEL claim failed.
Brandt, 242 F.3d at 16-17. The jury's verdict shows that
MetLife's CGL claim would not have satisfied the first element
of advertising coverage, and this failure would have doomed
MetLife's claim without regard to exclusions.
The Washington and Ohio Lawsuits. As to the insurance
claims based on the Washington and Ohio lawsuits, the district
court directed a verdict for Liberty after concluding that the
damages evidence offered by MetLife failed to allocate amounts
between covered and non-covered claims. MetLife says the
district court got the rules on allocation exactly backward and
that its evidence on damages should have been admitted and the
claims submitted to the jury. Liberty defends the district
court's allocation ruling and says that, in any case, none of
the claims are covered under the policy.
-18-
It is not uncommon for a lawsuit against an insured to
assert some claims that are covered by the insurance policy and
others that are not. In Massachusetts, as elsewhere, an insurer
must defend the entire lawsuit if it has a duty to defend any of
the underlying counts in the complaint. Mt. Airy Ins. Co. v.
Greenbaum, 127 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir. 1997) (citing Aetna Cas. &
Sur. Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 604 N.E.2d 30, 32 n.1 (Mass.
1992)). And the general rule under Massachusetts law is that if
the insurer fails to defend the lawsuit, it is liable for all
defense costs and (assuming policy coverage) the entire
resulting judgment or settlement, unless liability can be
allocated among covered and uncovered claims. Liquor Liab.
Joint Underwriting Ass'n of Mass. v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 644
N.E.2d 964, 968-69 (Mass. 1995); Palermo v. Fireman's Fund Ins.
Co., 676 N.E.2d 1158, 1163-64 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997).
Massachusetts courts have not expressly decided which
party bears the burden of allocating defense costs, but when
allocation of defense costs is possible, the burden of
allocation generally falls on the insurer. This is certainly
the rule as to allocation of indemnity costs, Liquor Liab. Joint
Underwriting Ass'n, 644 N.E.2d at 969; Palermo, 676 N.E.2d at
1163, and this approach likely applies to defense costs, since
the insurer should have been in a position to properly allocate
-19-
both types of costs had it defended the lawsuit. See Aerojet-
Gen. Corp. v. Transp. Indem. Co., 948 P.2d 909, 928 (Cal. 1998);
Windt, Insurance Claims & Disputes § 4.13 at 204 (3d ed. 1995).
The district court may not have been wrong in thinking
that there must be limits to this general approach. Here, for
example, the district court thought some of the claimed expenses
relating to the vanishing premium suits were to defend
independent agents who were not insured and others were for
sales outside the period covered by Liberty's policy. Possibly
an insured who needlessly conflates expenses not covered by the
policy with expenses that arguably are covered would forfeit any
claim that the insurer should bear the burden of disaggregating
the asserted damage figures.
However, so far as we can tell, the gravamen of the
district court's misallocation objection in the real estate
suits was that some of the expenses incurred in defending claims
by Washington were going to benefit MetLife's future defense of
the Ohio suit. It is hard to view such a collateral benefit as
a misallocation: so long as those costs were necessary for
covered claims in the Washington suit, the fact that the
research and discovery might be useful in some later case would
hardly defeat full recovery.
-20-
The district court was apparently also concerned that
many of the complaint's theories of recovery in the Washington
suit could not conceivably come within the advertising coverage
of the UEL policy. However, where the theories relate to a
common core of facts, defense costs are often hard to separate
between theories--the witnesses and documents are often the
same--and this is ordinarily the classic case for imposing the
allocation burden on the insurer who refused to defend a covered
theory. See, e.g., Home Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co., 229 F.3d 56, 65-66 (1st Cir. 2000).
However, any mistake by the district court on this
allocation issue is irrelevant unless some real estate claim
against MetLife was arguably covered by a Liberty policy--an
issue to which we now turn. An insurer has a duty to defend its
insured "if the allegations in the third-party complaint are
reasonably susceptible of an interpretation that they state or
adumbrate a claim covered by the policy terms." Mt. Airy Ins.
Co., 127 F.3d at 18-19 (quoting Sterilite Corp. v. Cont'l Cas.
Co., 458 N.E.2d 338, 340 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983)). Here, Liberty
has two separate arguments against coverage.
The first argument is that the real estate suits do not
even arguably involve "advertising activities" within the
meaning of the coverage provisions of the policies, an issue on
-21-
which MetLife bears the burden. Hakim v. Mass. Insurers'
Insolvency Fund, 675 N.E.2d 1161, 1166 n.13 (Mass. 1997). The
CGL and UEL definitions of advertising injury contain slightly
different language; but in both cases, Liberty says that the
promotional materials given to the Washington and Ohio boards,
essentially prospectuses describing the multi-million-dollar
real estate packages, are not "advertising" in any common sense
of the term.
There is a basic split in authority on this issue.
Some courts have taken the term "advertising" in its ordinary
usage to suggest public dissemination, usually to a wide
audience; on this view, a prospectus tailored to one customer
and one transaction, setting forth the terms of the proposed
deal and its supposed advantages, is not advertising but part of
the negotiation. Other courts have said that advertising can
occur in individual transactions, at least where the customer
base is small or where this is the customary practice in the
industry. Peerless Lighting Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 82
Cal. App. 4th 995, 1008-09 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (collecting
cases).
In Massachusetts there is only one leading case on
point and it very much adopts the former view. Smartfoods, Inc.
v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Co., 618 N.E.2d 1365 (Mass.
-22-
App. Ct. 1993), concerned a letter from one company to another
proposing terms for the latter to act as distributor of products
for the former; when litigation arose between the two companies,
the insured producer relied inter alia on an advertising injury
clause similar to the CGL policy in this case. The Appeals
Court said that "advertising means a public announcement to
proclaim the qualities of a product or point of view" and that
advertising's objective is the "[w]ide dissemination" of
information about a product. Id. at 1368. It deemed the letter
so unrelated to "advertising" as to defeat even a duty to
defend. Id. at 1369.
MetLife counters that this case is distinguishable on
its facts, because in the present real estate cases there were
"brochures and a marketing program directed at multiple
institutional investors." Yet aside from Smartfoods's broad
language, Smartfoods is fairly close on its facts: apparently
the producer sent similar letters to six other distributors.
Furthermore, MetLife concedes that it had a continuing
relationship with the two state boards, making a proposal for a
particular transaction even less like advertising and more like
continuing business.
MetLife also asserts that its UEL policy is broader in
defining advertising injury that the CGL language used both in
-23-
the Liberty policy and the Smartfoods case. It is true that the
latter two do not extend protection to claims for "any negligent
act, error or omission in the use of advertising or
merchandising ideas"; but the UEL policy, like the CGL and
Smartfoods policies, has a prior condition, namely, that the
act, error or omission grow out of "advertising activities."
The former is a pre-condition of any coverage under this part of
the policy and, if Smartfoods is followed, then this condition
has not been met.
Absent a decision by the state's highest court, we are
free to make our own best guess as to Massachusetts law,
Michelin Tires (Canada) Ltd. v. First Nat'l Bank of Boston, 666
F.2d 673, 682 (1st Cir. 1981), but there is no reason not to
consider Smartfoods as the prevailing rule in Massachusetts: it
is reasonably recent; it is not inconsistent with SJC precedent;
and it accords with what appears to be the majority view, albeit
by a small margin, among the courts that have spoken on the
issue, Peerless Lighting Corp., 82 Cal. App. 4th at 1008-09; 2
Windt, Insurance Claims & Disputes, § 11.29 at 339 n.404 (3d ed.
1995).
Smartfoods was decided before the Washington and Ohio
cases were tendered to Liberty. Nothing in the complaints
identified advertising at all; indeed, MetLife tendered the
-24-
cases only after it ascertained that the prospectuses would be
part of the boards' evidence. But by this time Smartfoods had
made clear that under Massachusetts law, such a tailored
document setting out a proposal for an individual customer is
not "advertising activity" or even arguably so. MetLife's claim
for coverage of the Washington and Ohio lawsuits thus fails
because there was no "advertising injury."
Even if there was advertising activity and injury, we
think that MetLife's claim would still fail because of the
exclusions of the IROE. The IROE was in all three of MetLife's
UEL policies, which are the pertinent policies for the real
estate cases.3 The critical language appears in subparagraphs
(c)(1), (5), and (6) of the IROE, which exclude coverage for
advertising liability where such liability "arise[s] out of the
rendering or failure to render professional services in" the
following activities:
(1) advising, inspecting, reporting or making
recommendations in the Insured's capacity as an
insurance company, consultant, broker, agent or
representative thereof, or
. . .
(5) the conduct of an investment, loan or
operation, or
3
On the first day of trial, MetLife conceded that the CGL
policy's unfair competition provision applied only to the
vanishing premium class actions and not to the real estate
cases. Moreover, MetLife's briefs--both at trial and on appeal-
-focus only on coverage under the UEL policy.
-25-
(6) any capacity as a fiduciary or trustee for
mutual funds, pension or welfare funds or other
similar activities. . . .4
The Washington and Ohio complaints alleged that
MetLife, as the parties' investment adviser and manager, assumed
fiduciary duties to the pension funds and that MetLife breached
its fiduciary duties by misrepresenting and failing to disclose
aspects of the real estate transactions and by mismanaging the
board's investment portfolio. It seems to us that on their
face, such claims fall directly within the language of
"advising" and "conduct[ing]" investment activities under
subparagraphs (c)(1) and (5) and acting in "any capacity" as a
fiduciary for pension or welfare funds under subparagraph
(c)(6).5
Neither of MetLife's two counter-arguments to this
initial conclusion is persuasive. It first says that the common
condition for the exclusion--that liability arise out of
4
Liberty also relies upon paragraph (a) of the IROE
excluding advertising liability that relates to an annuity; but
while the principal transaction involved an annuity in certain
respects, the record does not adequately reveal just what role
it played, and we do not rely upon paragraph (a).
5
In Massachusetts, the term "arising out of" has been
interpreted to require merely that a claim be connected to an
excluded event. See Med. Records Assocs., Inc. v. Am. Empire
Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 142 F.3d 512, 516 n.4 (1st Cir. 1998)
(citing New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,
667 N.E.2d 295, 198 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996)).
-26-
"professional services"--is not satisfied, because professional
services encompasses not mere business operations but activities
involving "the need for specialized learning or training." The
latter is a supportable view, e.g., Roe v. Fed. Ins. Co., 587
N.E.2d 214, 217 (Mass. 1992), but it hardly excludes assistance
and advice provided by a professional financial firm in
assessing and purchasing a huge real estate portfolio.
The other response offered by MetLife to subparagraphs
(c)(1), (5), and (6) is that the exclusion, where it applies,
only defeats the duty to indemnify and not the duty to defend.
MetLife notes that the introduction to the IROE states that
"[t]his policy does not apply to . . . Advertising Liability";
and it suggests that "advertising liability" refers not to all
damages incurred because of "advertising injury" but only to the
liability to the plaintiffs who sue the insured and then collect
a judgment or settlement. In other words, by using the term
"liability," MetLife says that Liberty made the entire exclusion
inapplicable to defense costs.
The duty to defend, in both the CGL and UEL policies,
is derivative; it requires that the claim of the plaintiff in
the underlying suit--whether valid or not--seek damages for some
injury that is arguably covered by the policy. See Higgenbottom
v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 425 N.E.2d 370, 372 (Mass. App. Ct.
-27-
1981); Windt, Insurance Claims & Disputes § 4.01 at 149-50 (3d
ed. 1995). If such a suit seeks on its face to impose a
liability excluded from coverage by the IROE, then the liability
is not insured against and there is not even an arguable
obligation to defend. Terrio v. McDonough, 450 N.E.2d 190, 194
(Mass. App. Ct. 1983).6
As matters stand, we think that Liberty had no duty to
defend or indemnify MetLife in the real estate suits because the
cases are not within the advertising injury coverage and, even
if they were, would be independently excluded by the IROE.
Either ground is sufficient for affirmance. Hope Furnace
Assocs., Inc. v. FDIC, 71 F.3d 39, 42 (1st Cir. 1995). Given
the stakes, we have considered MetLife's arguments with great
care, but in the end, find no basis for reversal or remand.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the district
court is affirmed.
APPENDIX
I. Coverage Clauses
Advertising Injury Coverage Under the 1985-91 CGL Policies:
6
The single case that MetLife cites in support of its
argument, United States v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 601 F.2d 1136
(10th Cir. 1979), is readily distinguishable on its facts. See
Jesko v. Am.-First Title & Trust Co., 603 F.2d 815, 817 & n.2
(10th Cir. 1979).
-28-
The company will pay . . . all sums which the
insured shall become legally obligated to pay as
damages because of . . . advertising injury to
which this insurance applies, sustained by any
person . . . and arising out of the conduct of
the named insured's business, . . . and the
company shall have the right and duty to defend
any suit against the insured seeking damages on
account of such injury, even if any of the
allegations of the suit are groundless, false or
fraudulent. . . . [JA 2367]
Definition of "Advertising Injury" for 1985-91 CGL Policies:
injury arising out of an offense committed during
the policy period occurring in the course of the
named insured's advertising activities, if such
injury arises out of libel, slander, defamation,
violation of right of privacy, piracy, unfair
competition, or infringement of copyright, title
or slogan. [JA 2367].
Advertising Injury Coverage Under the 1986-89 UEL Policies:
The company will pay . . . all sums . . . which
the insured shall become legally obligated to pay
. . . as damages . . . because of:
. . .
(c) advertising injury or damage
with respect to which this policy applies and
caused by an occurrence.
Definition of "Advertising Injury" for the 1986-89 UEL Policies:
personal injury (other than bodily injury) and
injury to intangible property sustained by a
person . . . arising out of causes of injury
first published in connection with the named
insured's advertising activities during the
policy period as the result of libel, slander,
defamation, piracy, infringement of copyrights,
-29-
invasion of the right of privacy or any negligent
act, error or omission in the use of advertising
or merchandising ideas. [JA 2470].
Personal Injury Coverage Under the 1992-96 CGL Policies:
a. We will pay those sums that the insured
becomes legally obligated to pay as damages
because of "personal injury" . . . to which this
coverage part applies. We will have the right
and duty to defend any "suit" seeking those
damages. . . .
b. This insurance applies to:
(1) "Personal Injury" caused by an offense
arising out of your business, excluding
advertising, publishing, broadcasting or
telecasting done by you or for you . . .
but only if the offense was committed in
the "coverage territory" during the policy
period. [JA 2921].
Definition of Personal Injury for the 1992-96 CGL Policies:
Injury to the feelings or reputation of a natural
person other than "bodily injury" or "property
damage". . . . [JA 2921].
II. Exclusions
Insurance and Related Operations Exclusion in All UEL Policies
and in CGL Policies until April 1988 (IROE):
This policy does not apply to . . . Personal
Injury or Advertising Liability:
(a) resulting from or arising out of
(1) any obligation assumed by any
Insured under, or
(2) the failure to discharge, or the
improper discharge of, any obligation
or duty, contractual or otherwise
respecting
-30-
any contract or treaty of
insurance, reinsurance, suretyship,
annuity, endorsement or employee
benefit plan.
. . .
(c) arising out of the rendering of or
failure to render professional services in
(1) advising, inspecting, reporting
or making recommendations in the
Insured's capacity as an insurance
company, consultant, broker, agent or
representative thereof, or
(2) effecting insurance
. . .
(5) the conduct of an investment,
loan or operation, or
(6) any capacity as a fiduciary or
trustee for mutual funds, pension or
welfare funds or other similar
activities . . . [JA 2372].
-31-