USCA1 Opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 93-2230
MAINE DRILLING AND BLASTING, INC.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Breyer,* Chief Judge, ___________
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Torruella, Circuit Judge. _____________
_____________________
Stephen B. Wade, with whom Skelton, Taintor & Abbott was on ________________ _________________________
brief for appellant.
James D. Poliquin, with whom Norman, Hanson & Detroy was on __________________ _______________________
brief for appellee Insurance Company of North America.
____________________
October 18, 1995
____________________
____________________
* Former Chief Judge Stephen Breyer heard oral argument in this
matter but did not participate in the drafting or the issuance of
the panel's opinion. The remaining two panelists therefore issue
this opinion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 46(d).
TORRUELLA, Chief Judge. Maine Drilling & Blasting, TORRUELLA, Chief Judge. ___________
Inc. ("MD&B"), brought suit in the United States District Court
of Maine, alleging that the Insurance Company of North America
("INA") was required to defend and indemnify MD&B in an action
brought against MD&B arising from property damage caused by
MD&B's blasting work on a construction site. The district court
found that the insurance policy at issue excluded coverage for
the damages caused by MD&B, and granted summary judgment in favor
of INA. MD&B appealed, and on August 29, 1994, we certified the
following dispositive question of Maine law to the Supreme
Judicial Court of Maine.
Does the Explosives Limitation
Endorsement attached to the standard
Comprehensive General Liability policy,
when considered in conjunction with the
business risk exclusions, j(5) and j(6),
and any relevant history and general
understanding of the insurance industry,
create such an ambiguity that it should
be interpreted against the insurer, i.e.,
that it should be read as providing
business risk coverage for MD&B's claims
against INA?
Maine Drilling and Blasting, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North ___________________________________ ________________________
America, 34 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1994). _______
In an opinion dated September 29, 1995, the Supreme
Judicial Court of Maine answered the certified question in the
negative.
The policy in this case, read with its
endorsements, is unambiguous.
Subsections (j)(5) and (j)(6) serve to
limit the coverage to that property
damage occurring to property other than
that on which the insured is to perform
its work. The endorsement confirms
-2-
coverage for 'occurrence of harm'
blasting risk, albeit at a higher
deductible. The endorsement by its plain
language does not extend coverage where
coverage did not exist, but provides for
a deductible where coverage does exist.
The exclusions contained in subsections
(j)(5) and (j)(6) are unaffected by the
plain language of the Explosives
Limitation Endorsement.
We answer the certified question in the
negative.
The Supreme Judicial Court's conclusion that the policy
is unambiguous is dispositive of the only issue in this case.
Because the policy is unambiguous, the exclusions apply. The
decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor
of INA is therefore affirmed. affirmed
-3-