Posts tagged "1113417"

OneBeacon America Insurance Company v. Celanese Corporation (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-134-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   16-P-203                                        Appeals Court   ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY  vs.  CELANESE CORPORATION.     No. 16-P-203.   Suffolk.     November 18, 2016. – October 16, 2017.   Present:  Trainor, Meade, & Hanlon, JJ.     Insurance, Defense of proceedings against insured, Insurer’s obligation to defend.  Contract, Insurance.  Conflict of Interest.  Practice, Civil, Summary judgment, Attorney’s fees.     Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 2, 2010.   The case was heard by Christine M. Roach, J., on motions for summary judgment, and an award of attorney’s fees was entered by her.     Kevin J. O’Connor (Kara A. Loridas also present) for the plaintiff. Michael John Miguel for the defendant.     TRAINOR, J.  This appeal arises from a series of cross motions for summary judgment.  The plaintiff, OneBeacon America Insurance Company (OneBeacon), appeals from so much of the final judgment as awarded reasonable and necessary defense costs to its insured, Celanese Corporation (Celanese), that Celanese incurred from April 13, 2009, through May 27, 2011.[1]  On May 27, 2011, a judge of the Superior Court determined that OneBeacon was entitled to take control of Celanese’s defense as of April 13, 2009 (see note 1, supra).  The issue on appeal is whether that determination precludes Celanese from receiving any reimbursement for defense of the underlying claims during the period of time when the question of control over the defense was being litigated.  OneBeacon argues that it is not liable for any defense costs incurred by Celanese during that period of time because OneBeacon offered to defend Celanese without a reservation of rights.  Celanese, on cross appeal, contends that the judge committed an abuse of discretion by not awarding the full amount of defense costs that Celanese requested.  We vacate so much of the judgment that held OneBeacon liable for Celanese’s defense costs for the period of time at issue, and therefore do not reach the issues raised in Celanese’s cross appeal. Background.  The following undisputed facts are taken from the summary judgment record.  See Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117, 120 (1991) (“The standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”). […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 16, 2017 at 5:18 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,