Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-1787
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:13-cv-01042-CCB)
Argued:
Decided:
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellee Northern Assurance Company of America (Northern)
insured
Appellant
Brawner
Builders,
Inc.
(Brawner)
for
He suffered an
the
insurance
policy
Northern
did
not
declined
afford
to
Asserting
coverage
provide
for
defense
the
Kalandras
claim,
to
Brawner.
Massachusetts
Maryland
insurance
construction
company,
contracting
insured
business,
for
for
[c]osts
incurred . . .
J.A. 140.
for
investigation
The
indemnity
portion
also
contained
crew-specific
the
Policy
passengers,
and
with
crew
special
members.
conditions
The
special
for
navigation,
conditions
for
J.A. 143.
Of
particular
relevance
here
is
the
special
condition
engine
Kalandras
cover
was
aboard
one
Brawner
crew
of
Brawners
member.
insured
Brawner,
vessels.
however,
had
On
District
of
Maryland,
Brawner
filed
this
suit
against
Northern filed a
denied
and
Brawners
entered
cross-motion,
judgment
in
favor
granted
of
Northerns
Northern.
Brawner
layperson
could
interpret
the
Policy
as
providing
coverage only for the crew members expressly listed in the Crew
Condition.
the
court
to
assume
reasonable
person
could
also
Id. at *5.
5
II.
We review grants of summary judgment de novo.
Liberties
Union
v.
Mote,
423
F.3d
438,
442
(4th
Am. Civil
Cir.
2005)
Summary judgment is
reviewing
cross-motions
for
summary
judgment,
the
appeal
requires
us
to
interpret
the
Policy
to
Brawner
We disagree.
Cas.
Corp.,
F.3d
138,
142
(4th
Cir.
2000).
In
See Aetna
Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Cochran, 651 A.2d 859, 862 (Md. 1995).
construe an insurance contract by examining its terms.
We
Pac.
Indem. Co. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 488 A.2d 486, 488 (Md.
1985).
To
determine
the
parties
intent,
we
construe
the
Id.
See id.
prudent
one
layperson
would
attach
only
If a reasonably
meaning,
then
the
Id. at 489.
unambiguous
because
reasonably
prudent
layperson
would
While the
J.A. 140.
made part of the Policy, J.A. 143, but also, under Maryland
law, the main insurance policy and an endorsement constitute a
single
insurance
contract,
and
an
effort
should
be
made
to
to
be
named.
We
conclude
that
it
did.
The
Crew
members
covered
under
this
policy.
J.A.
143.
This
crew
insurance
members.
context
Merriam-Webster
as
afford[ing]
8
defines
cover
protection
in
the
against
or
compensation
for.
Cover,
Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cover
Nov.
13,
2015).
Similarly,
Oxford
Dictionary,
(last
defines
visited
cover
as
consequences.
Cover,
Oxford
Dictionaries,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english
/cover (last visited Nov. 13, 2015).
Giving
cover
definitions,
we
its
determine
ordinary
that
meaning
the
Policy
based
on
protected
these
Brawner
as
the
Crew
Condition
can
be
read
alongside
other
For
140,
crew.
Brawner
which,
for
the
arguably,
medical
could
expenses
include
of
any
any
member
person,
of
the
confounding:
the
Policys
bodily
9
injury
and
medical
expenses
provisions,
for
whereas
the
were.
In
provisions
an
conditions
example,
were
for
analogous
relating
to
not
limited
burial
vein,
and
crew
members,
repatriation
expenses
moreover,
navigation
to
the
and
special
passengers
policy
expressly
general
condition
for
seaworthiness.
J.A.
143.
us
no
warrant
to
construct
an
ambiguity
from
their
endorsement controls, rather than the main policy, where the two
provisions conflict.
As
the
Crew
Condition,
set
forth
in
an
endorsement
to
the
coverage
would
member.
For
have
only
example,
been
denied
single
for
occurrence
any
unnamed
could
crew
result
in
to
Brawner
cap
the
vessel.
Condition,
and
argues
number
Brawner
similar
of
that
the
crew
relies
language
11
members
on
in
Crew
Condition
allowed
language
the
crew
in
served
aboard
an
the
Crew
warranty,
that
stated that there shall not be more than two (2) crew members
aboard the insured vessel at any one time.
If
Id.