Hansen v. Sentry Insurance Company, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Hansen v. Sentry Insurance Company, 1st Cir. (2014)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hansen-v-sentry-insurance-company-1st-cir-2014 1/25

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1940

MARK A. HANSEN,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

SENTRY I NSURANCE COMPANY,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF NEW HAMPSHI RE

[ Hon. J oseph A. Di Cl er i co, J r . , U. S. Di str i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Ci r cui t J udge,Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce, *

Thompson, Ci r cui t J udge.

Todd A. Sul l i van, wi t h whomHayes Sol oway, P. C. was on br i ef ,f or appel l ant .

Mi chael F. Ayl ward, wi t h whom Morr i son Mahoney LLP was onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

J une 25, 2014

* The Hon. Davi d H. Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce ( Ret . ) of t heSupr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.



THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Some years ago, Appel l ant Mark

Hansen served as a vi ce pr esi dent of Wi l cox I ndust r i es Corp.

( "Wi l cox") bef or e st r i ki ng out on hi s own and f oundi ng hi s own

company, Advanced Li f e Suppor t Technol ogi es, I nc. ( "ALST" ) .

Al t hough hi s depar t ur e may have been ami cabl e at f i r st , i t di d not

r emai n so f or l ong. Wi l cox sued Hansen i n t he New Hampshi r e

di st r i ct cour t f or , al l egedl y, poachi ng i t s cust omer s and spr eadi ng

f al se, damagi ng i nf or mat i on about i t s product s.

Hansen, who had not pur chased l i abi l i t y i nsur ance t o

cover hi s new busi ness, f ound hi msel f f ace- t o- f ace wi t h t he

pr ospect of f undi ng hi s l egal def ense and sat i sf yi ng any j udgment

agai nst hi m out - of - pocket . Necessi t y bei ng t he mot her of

i nvent i on, Hansen hi t upon an i ngeni ous sol ut i on to hi s conundr um- -

or so he t hought . He demanded t hat Wi l cox' s i nsurer , appel l ee

Sent r y I nsurance Company ( "Sent r y") , def end and i ndemni f y hi m

agai nst hi s f or mer empl oyer ' s cl ai ms. Sent r y decl i ned, and t hi s

cover age act i on f ol l owed.

Al t hough Hansen craf t s some cr eat i ve argument s, a da

Vi nci he i s not . We concl ude Sent r y does not owe any dut y t o

def end or i ndemni f y Hansen agai nst Wi l cox' s cl ai ms. Accor di ngl y,

we af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of Sent r y' s mot i on f or summar y

j udgment .

-2-



I. BACKGROUND

Because t he cont our s of our anal ysi s are gover ned i n

l ar ge par t by t he al l egat i ons i n Wi l cox' s November 28, 2011,

compl ai nt agai nst Hansen ( t he "Under l yi ng Compl ai nt " ) , we set f or t h

t hose al l egat i ons, suppl ement ed as necessary wi t h uncont est ed

evi dence adduced dur i ng di scover y i n t he under l yi ng l i t i gat i on.

Wi l cox i s a New Hampshi r e cor porat i on t hat desi gns,

manuf act ur es, and sel l s " t act i cal equi pment " t o t he Uni t ed St at es

mi l i t ary and other f eder al and l ocal gover nment agenci es. One of

t he pr oduct s i t has manuf act ur ed over t he past decade- pl us i s a

sel f - cont ai ned br eathi ng apparatus ( t hi nk of SCUBA gear used on

l and) or i gi nal l y ref er r ed t o as SCOUT but known t oday as PATRI OT.

Accor di ng t o t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt , PATRI OT ut i l i zes hi ghl y-

speci al i zed t echnol ogy and of f er s f eat ur es not avai l abl e i n

compet i ng product s.

Hansen ent er ed t he pi ct ur e i n 2003, when Wi l cox hi r ed hi m

as a consul t ant . He began wor ki ng f ul l - t i me di r ect l y f or Wi l cox i n

Mar ch of 2005, and ser ved as one of Wi l cox' s vi ce pr esi dent s unt i l

l eavi ng Wi l cox' s empl oy on J une 15, 2007. As a vi ce pr esi dent ,

Hansen had access t o conf i dent i al i nf or mat i on r egar di ng Wi l cox' s

devel opment of t he next - generat i on PATRI OT, al ong wi t h knowl edge of

Wi l cox' s cur r ent and pot ent i al cust omer s, and i t s mar ket i ng

st r at egi es. He al so si gned a Nondi scl osur e and Nonsol i ci t at i on

Agr eement i n whi ch he agr eed t hat he woul d not di scl ose Wi l cox' s

-3-



"conf i dent i al i nf or mat i on, " i ncl udi ng "al l t angi bl e and i nt angi bl e

t r ade secret s, pr opr i et ar y i nf or mat i on, i nvent i ons, di scover i es,

pr ocesses, met hods, f or mul as, " and t he l i ke.

Al t hough thei r empl oyer - empl oyee rel at i onshi p ceased i n

J une 2007, Hansen' s i nvol vement wi t h Wi l cox cont i nued, as Wi l cox

hi r ed hi m and ALST as consul t ant s. I n t hi s r ol e, Hansen was

expect ed t o market PATRI OT to pot ent i al new cust omers and provi de

post - sal e suppor t and t r ai ni ng t o PATRI OT cust omer s. Wi l cox al so

pai d hi mt o at t end i nt er nal meet i ngs r egar di ng t he next - gener at i on

PATRI OT. Hi s consul t i ng r ol e agai n pr ovi ded Hansen wi t h access t o

Wi l cox' s conf i dent i al and pr opr i et ar y i nf or mat i on, up t o t he t i me

he and Wi l cox par t ed ways i n Febr uary 2009. As t he Under l yi ng

Compl ai nt put s i t , dur i ng t hi s t i me Hansen " r ef er r ed t o hi msel f t o

Wi l cox' s cust omers as Presi dent of ALST, and market ed hi s own

product s and company to t hese cust omers. "

The gravamen of t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt i s Wi l cox' s

cl ai m of unf ai r compet i t i on agai nst Hansen. Accor di ng t o t he

Under l yi ng Compl ai nt , Hansen used hi s knowl edge of Wi l cox' s t r ade

secret s and pr opr i et ary i nf ormat i on t o devel op hi s own compet i ng

sel f - cont ai ned br eat hi ng devi ce, "SHI ELD" , whi ch he based on

Wi l cox' s t echnol ogy and uni que product f eat ur es. Hansen t hen began

sel l i ng SHI ELD t hr ough ALST. More t han t hat , Wi l cox cl ai ms, Hansen

used hi s knowl edge of Wi l cox' s cust omer base t o go out and,

essent i al l y, st eal Wi l cox' s cust omer s. The Under l yi ng Compl ai nt

-4-



speci f i cal l y al l eges t hat Hansen si gned a cont r act wi t h t he Los

Angel es Count y Sher i f f ' s Depart ment f or t he manuf actur e and sal e of

SHI ELD, despi t e hi s knowl edge t hat Wi l cox had been i n t he mi ddl e of

market i ng PATRI OT t o t hat very depar t ment . Wi l cox goes on t o

asser t t hat t hi s i s not t he onl y exampl e of Hansen' s unf ai r

compet i t i on.

The Under l yi ng Compl ai nt set s f or t h a panopl y of count s

agai nst Hansen and ALST: br each of cont r act ; br each of t he i mpl i ed

covenant of good f ai t h and f ai r deal i ng; common l aw and st atut ory

unf ai r compet i t i on; mi sappr opr i at i on of t r ade secr et s; br each of

f i duci ar y dut y; unj ust enr i chment ; and i nt ent i onal i nt er f er ence

wi t h cont r actual r el at i ons. Count VI I I i s especi al l y si gni f i cant

t o the i nsur ance cover age i ssues we addr ess her e, as i t st at es t hat

"Hansen i s . . . maki ng harmf ul f al se st atement s about Wi l cox and

i t s t echnol ogy whi l e mar ket i ng hi s own pr oduct s t o Wi l cox

cust omer s. " 1

Wi l cox f i l ed t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt on or about

November 28, 2011. Hansen t ender ed hi s def ense t o Wi l cox' s

i nsurer , Sent r y, whi ch i nsured Wi l cox under a Commer ci al Gener al

Li abi l i t y Pol i cy ef f ect i ve f r om November 2, 2006, t o November 2,

2007 ( t he "Pol i cy") . Sent r y deni ed cover age on March 13, 2012.

Sent r y sai d i t di d not have t o def end or i ndemni f y Hansen because

1 As we wi l l expl ai n, Count VI I I i s i mpor t ant because i t i st he onl y one set t i ng f or t h al l egat i ons pot ent i al l y cover ed byi nsur ance.

-5-



( among ot her r easons) t he Pol i cy onl y cover ed Hansen dur i ng t he

t i me he was a Wi l cox of f i cer or empl oyee, whi l e t he Under l yi ng

Compl ai nt sought t o r ecover damages Wi l cox suf f er ed af t er J une 15,

2007, Hansen' s l ast day as a Wi l cox empl oyee. Hansen di d not

i mmedi atel y pur sue hi s cover age cl ai ms r equest agai nst Sent r y.

Di scover y pr oceeded i n t he usual cour se, and Wi l cox' s

CEO, J ames Teet zel , was deposed on J une 5, 2012. Hansen' s counsel

asked Teet zel about t he dat es on whi ch Hansen made f al se and

di spar agi ng st at ement s about Wi l cox, and Teet zel i ni t i al l y

r esponded wi t h uncer t ai nt y. But af t er some f ol l ow- up quest i ons,

Teetzel t est i f i ed Hansen "absol ut el y" made derogator y st at ements

about Wi l cox and i t s pr oduct s dur i ng t he t i me Hansen served as vi ce

pr esi dent . Teet zel al so t est i f i ed t hat Wi l cox f i l ed sui t agai nst

Hansen i n part because of t hese st atement s, but pr i mar i l y because

of Hansen' s "di sr egar d t o t r ade secr et s t hat Wi l cox owns. "

Dur i ng t he cour se of hi s deposi t i on, Teet zel det ai l ed

Hansen' s per sonal busi ness act i vi t i es. Teet zel t est i f i ed t hat

Hansen f or med ALST dur i ng t he t i me he worked f or Wi l cox, and that

t hr ough ALST Hansen " [ sol d] other pr oduct s t hat are compl et el y

unr el at ed t o t he PATRI OT l i ne. " These unr el at ed pr oduct s i ncl uded

t hi ngs l i ke " j ump bot t l es f or skydi vi ng and oxygen consol es f or

hol di ng oxygen f or - - i t ' s l i ke a l ar ge r eser voi r of oxygen f or

skydi ver s t o j am bef or e t hey j ump out of an ai r cr af t . " Accor di ng

t o Teet zel , ALST' s l ogo i s "a guy j umpi ng out of a pl ane, " and on

-6-



at l east one occasi on whi l e "on [ Wi l cox' s] payr ol l or as a

consul t ant he showed up wi t h t hat l ogo t hat he has on hi s shi r t . "

Ar med wi t h Teetzel ' s deposi t i on t est i mony, Hansen r enewed

hi s cover age demand on August 14, 2012. Hansen sai d t hat t hi s

t est i mony now made hi m el i gi bl e f or i nsur ance cover age, as i t

showed Wi l cox was act ual l y cl ai mi ng t hat he made derogat ory

st atement s about Wi l cox dur i ng t he cour se of hi s empl oyment t her e.

Sent r y di sagr eed and agai n deni ed cover age. Key t o i t s deni al t hi s

t i me was i t s posi t i on t hat Hansen st i l l f ai l ed t o qual i f y f or

cover age because, i n maki ng such di sparagi ng st at ement s, Hansen was

not "car r yi ng out hi s dut i es as an execut i ve of f i cer of Wi l cox or

ot her wi se act i ng" on Wi l cox' s behal f or t o f ur t her i t s i nt er est s.

Sent r y' s cont i nued deni al pr eci pi t at ed t hi s sui t .

Gr oundi ng f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on on di ver si t y pur suant t o 28 U. S. C.

§ 1332, Hansen seeks a decl arat i on ( under st at e and f eder al l aw)

t hat Sent r y owes a dut y t o def end and i ndemni f y hi mwi t h r espect t o

t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt . He al so asser t s t hat Sent r y' s deni al of

cover age const i t ut es a br each of cont r act .

Af t er di smi ssi ng t he st at e l aw decl ar at or y j udgment cl ai m

as unt i mel y, t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat Hansen does not

qual i f y as an " i nsur ed" gi ven t he nat ur e of t he al l egat i ons agai nst

-7-



hi m, and grant ed Sent r y' s mot i on f or summar y j udgment . Thi s appeal

f ol l owed. 2

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

The par t i es, qui t e r i ght l y, do not di sput e t hat t he

subst ant i ve l aw of New Hampshi r e appl i es t o the cover age i ssues i n

t hi s di ver si t y case. See Ener gyNor t h Nat ur al Gas, I nc. v. Cent ur y

I ndem. Co. , 452 F. 3d 44, 48 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( appl yi ng New Hampshi r e

l aw) . Nei t her par t y ar gues t hat t hi s mat t er i nvol ves a f eder al

quest i on.

I n New Hampshi r e " [ t ] he i nt er pr et at i on of i nsur ance

pol i cy l anguage i s a quest i on of l aw, " Town of Londonder r y v. N. H.

Mun. Ass' n Pr oper t y Li abi l i t y I ns. Tr ust , I nc. , 667 A. 2d 1024, 1025

( N. H. 1995) , and engender s de novo revi ew on appeal , Ross v. Home

I ns. Co. , 773 A. 2d 654, 656 ( N. H. 2001) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k

omi t t ed) ( "The i nt er pr et at i on of i nsur ance pol i cy l anguage i s

ul t i mat el y a quest i on of l aw f or t hi s cour t t o deci de. ") . To t he

ext ent t he di st r i ct cour t made f act ual f i ndi ngs, we def er t o t hem

"unl ess t hey ar e ' l acki ng i n evi dent i al suppor t or t ai nt ed by er r or

of l aw. ' " Raudoni s v. I ns. Co. of Nor t h Amer i ca, 623 A. 2d 746, 747

( N. H. 1993) ( quot i ng Gel i nas v. Met r opol i t an Pr op. & Li abi l i t y I ns.

Co. , 551 A. 2d 962, 966 ( N. H. 1988) ) .

2 The par t i es t el l us t hat t he under l yi ng l i t i gat i on has si ncebeen set t l ed. Thi s does not af f ect our cover age anal ysi s.

-8-



B. Timeliness of the Action

The par t i es expend si gni f i cant ener gy ar gui ng over

whet her t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed when i t di smi ssed Hansen' s st at e-

based decl arat ory j udgment count as t i me- bar r ed. Under New

Hampshi r e l aw, a decl arat ory j udgment act i on t o det er mi ne i nsurance

cover age must be " f i l ed wi t hi n 6 mont hs af t er t he f i l i ng of t he

wr i t , compl ai nt , or ot her pl eadi ng i ni t i at i ng t he act i on whi ch

gi ves ri se t o t he quest i on. " See N. H. Rev. St at . Ann. § 491: 22( I I I ) .

Hansen admi t s t hat he f ai l ed t o f i l e hi s cover age act i on

wi t hi n si x mont hs of t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt . However , and

necessar i l y concedi ng t he cor r ect ness of Sent r y' s i ni t i al deni al of

cover age, he cl ai ms t o f al l wi t hi n an except i on t o t he si x- mont h

l i mi t because " t he f act s gi vi ng r i se" t o t he cover age di sput e wer e

"not known t o, or r easonabl y di scover abl e by" hi m unt i l Teet zel

t est i f i ed t hat Hansen made di spar agi ng st atement s about Wi l cox

whi l e a vi ce pr esi dent . See i d. ( pr ovi di ng t hat t he si x- mont h

l i mi t at i ons per i od "shal l not appl y wher e t he f act s gi vi ng r i se t o

such cover age di sput e are not known t o, or r easonabl y di scover abl e

. . . unt i l af t er expi r at i on of such 6- mont h per i od") . Hansen t hen

ar gues t hat t hi s act i on i s t i mel y because he f i l ed sui t wi t hi n a

" r easonabl e t i me" af t er Teet zel ' s deposi t i on. See Bi nda v. Royal

I ns. Co. , 744 A. 2d 634, 636 ( N. H. 2000) ( i mposi ng r equi r ement t hat

act i on be f i l ed "wi t hi n a r easonabl e t i me f r ame" af t er di scover y of

f act s gi vi ng r i se t o cover age di sput e) . Sent r y ar gues t hat even i f

-9-



t he cover age di sput e di d not become appar ent unt i l Teet zel ' s

deposi t i on, Hansen was not r easonabl e i n wai t i ng al most si x f ul l

mont hs af t er t he deposi t i on t o f i l e sui t . 3

We decl i ne t o deci de t hi s i ssue, as Hansen' s cover age

cl ai mf ai l s on i t s mer i t s i n any case. Accor di ngl y, we wi l l si mpl y

assume that Hansen' s compl ai nt was t i mel y under New Hampshi r e l aw

and pr oceed f r om t her e.

C. Coverage Analysis

i. Policy Language

To set t he st age f or t he r est of our di scussi on, we begi n

wi t h a r un- down of t he Pol i cy l anguage r el evant t o t hi s appeal .

The Pol i cy i s an occur r ence pol i cy ef f ect i ve November 2,

2006, t hr ough November 2, 2007. See Pol i cy Decl arat i ons. The sol e

"Named I nsur ed" i s Wi l cox. I d. The Pol i cy def i nes t he t er m "you"

t o mean t he Named I nsured onl y. I d. , Commer ci al Gener al Li abi l i t y

Coverage Form. " I nsur ed" i s br oader t hough, and i ncl udes t he Named

3 The par t i es appear t o agr ee t hat even i f we f i nd t he st at el aw cl ai munt i mel y, Hansen' s cl ai mbased on t he f eder al decl ar at or y j udgment act survi ves because t he f eder al st at ut e does not have ananal agous si x- mont h l i mi t at i ons per i od. See 28 U. S. C. § 2201. Thi s i s r at her f l ummoxi ng: we ar e si t t i ng i n di ver si t y t oadj udi cat e st at e l aw cl ai ms, and t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat t hi scase i nvol ves any f eder al quest i on t hat woul d suppor t ani ndependent f eder al cause of act i on appr opr i at e f or decl ar at or y

r el i ef . "Feder al j ur i sdi cti on does not l i e si mpl y because r el i ef i s r equest ed under t he f eder al Decl ar at or y J udgment Act . " Col oni alPenn Gr oup, I nc. v. Col oni al Deposi t Co. , 834 F. 2d 229, 232 ( 1stCi r . 1987) . Al t hough i t may be t empt i ng t o del ve i nt o whet herHansen' s f eder al cl ai m coul d sur vi ve i n t he absence of hi s st at edecl ar at ory j udgment cl ai m, because Hansen' s cl ai ms f ai l on t hei rmer i t s we need not do so.

-10-



I nsur ed al ong wi t h i t s "' execut i ve of f i cer s' and di r ector s . . . ,

but onl y wi t h r espect t o t hei r dut i es as your [ i . e. , Wi l cox' s]

of f i cer s or di r ect or s. " I d. , Sect i on I I ( 1) ( d) . Thus, pur suant t o

t he Pol i cy' s pl ai n and unambi guous l anguage, Hansen i s i nsured by

t he Pol i cy onl y wi t h r espect t o hi s dut i es as a Wi l cox vi ce

pr esi dent , and onl y up t hr ough t he dat e of hi s t er mi nat i on ( i . e. ,

J une 15, 2007) .

We must al so det ermi ne whether any of t he Pol i cy' s

speci f i c cover ages may appl y t o t he al l egat i ons i n t he Under l yi ng

Compl ai nt . Hansen cont ends Sent r y owes a dut y t o def end hi m

pur suant t o Cover age B, Per sonal and Adver t i si ng Li abi l i t y. We

have revi ewed t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt and t he Pol i cy, and we

concur t hat t hi s i s t he onl y pot ent i al l y appl i cabl e cover age.

Cover age B pr ovi des, i n per t i nent par t :

a. We wi l l pay t hose sums t hat t he i nsuredbecomes l egal l y obl i gat ed t o pay as damagesbecause of ‘ per sonal and adver t i si ng i nj ur y’t o whi ch t hi s i nsur ance appl i es. We wi l l havet he r i ght and dut y t o def end t he i nsuredagai nst any ‘ sui t ’ seeki ng t hose damages.However , we wi l l have no dut y t o def end t hei nsur ed agai nst any ‘ sui t ’ seeki ng damages f or‘ per sonal and adver t i si ng i nj ur y’ t o whi cht hi s i nsur ance does not appl y . . . .

b. Thi s i nsur ance appl i es t o ‘ per sonal andadver t i si ng i nj ur y’ caused by an of f ense

ar i si ng out of your busi ness but onl y i f t heof f ense was commi t t ed i n t he ‘ coveraget er r i t or y’ dur i ng t he pol i cy per i od.

Pol i cy, Coverage B( 1) ( emphases added) .

-11-



Not abl y, t he Pol i cy f i rst ref ers t o l i abi l i t i es of t he

" i nsur ed, " whi ch ( as we est abl i shed above) i ncl udes Wi l cox' s

"execut i ve of f i cer s" i n cer t ai n ci r cumst ances. However , t he Pol i cy

goes on t o i mmedi atel y l i mi t Cover age B t o per sonal and adver t i si ng

i nj ur y "ari si ng out of your busi ness. " Recal l i ng t hat t he Pol i cy' s

r ef er ence t o "you" means Wi l cox onl y, t hi s qual i f yi ng l anguage

unambi guousl y est abl i shes t hat Cover age B i s onl y avai l abl e when a

Wi l cox of f i cer , i n t he cour se of hi s dut i es f or Wi l cox, becomes

l i abl e f or "per sonal and adver t i si ng i nj ur y" ar i si ng out of

Wi l cox' s busi ness.

But what exact l y i s "per sonal and adver t i si ng i nj ur y"?

The Pol i cy def i nes i t as

i nj ur y, i ncl udi ng consequent i al ' bodi l yi nj ur y' , ar i si ng out of one or mor e of t hef ol l owi ng of f enses: . . .

d. Or al or wr i t t en publ i cat i on of mat er i alt hat sl ander s or l i bel s a per son oror gani zat i on or di spar ages a per son’ sor or gani zat i on’ s goods, pr oduct s orservi ces . . . .

Pol i cy, Sect i on V( 14) . 4

Havi ng gone thr ough t he pr ovi si ons i mport ant t o our

anal ysi s, we can move on t o addr ess Hansen' s speci f i c cover age

ar guments.

4 The Pol i cy def i nes si x ot her "of f enses, " none of whi ch haveany appl i cabi l i t y her e.

-12-



ii. Framing the Issues

Hansen al l eges t hat t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt , when

coupl ed wi t h Teet zel ' s deposi t i on t est i mony, t r i gger s Sent r y' s dut y

t o def end hi m. I n hi s vi ew, he qual i f i es f or cover age because ( 1)

Wi l cox al l eges t hat i t was damaged, at l east i n par t , by Hansen' s

act i ons whi l e he was a vi ce pr esi dent , t her eby render i ng t he Pol i cy

appl i cabl e, and ( 2) t he al l eged act s wer e under t aken wi t h r espect

t o hi s dut i es as a vi ce pr esi dent , meani ng t hat he f al l s wi t hi n t he

def i ni t i on of an "i nsur ed. " I n i nsi st i ng t hat t he al l eged

st atement s wer e made dur i ng the Pol i cy per i od, Hansen r el i es on

Teetzel ' s deposi t i on t est i mony i n whi ch Teetzel st at ed as much.

Wi t h r espect t o hi s second poi nt , Hansen ar gues i t i s

t heor et i cal l y possi bl e t hat he coul d have made st at ement s t hat

har med Wi l cox whi l e he was f ul f i l l i ng hi s dut i es as a vi ce

pr esi dent . By way of exampl e, he posi t s t hat Wi l cox' s Under l yi ng

Compl ai nt "coul d have been al l egi ng t hat Hansen, dur i ng a vi si t t o

one of [ Wi l cox' s] cust omer s, was ser vi ci ng t he [PATRI OT] and

market i ng hi s [ own pr oduct s t hat di d not compet e wi t h Wi l cox

pr oduct s] whi l e maki ng one of t he al l eged har mf ul f al se

st atement s. " Under t hi s scenar i o, Hansen bel i eves t hat any harmf ul

st at ement s he may have made woul d have been "i n connect i on wi t h"

hi s dut i es as vi ce pr esi dent . He al so suggest s t hat any

mi sr epr esent at i on can onl y have been negl i gent , as he does not

bel i eve he ever made any harmf ul , f al se st atement s about Wi l cox.

-13-



For i t s par t , Sent r y f i r st cont ends t hat t he Under l yi ng

Compl ai nt al l eges t hat Hansen onl y made di sparagi ng st at ement s

af t er he l ef t Wi l cox' s empl oyment . I t t hen ar gues t hat Teet zel ' s

deposi t i on t est i mony i s "equi vocal " and, t her ef or e, does not

est abl i sh t hat Hansen made di spar agi ng st atement s dur i ng hi s

servi ce as vi ce pr esi dent . I n t he absence of al l eged damages

occur r i ng dur i ng t he Pol i cy per i od, Sent r y asser t s, t he Pol i cy does

not appl y to any of t he al l eged act s, and t her e i s no dut y to

def end or i ndemni f y.

Shoul d t hi s not car r y t he day, Sent r y goes on t o ar gue

t hat even i f we concl ude t hat Hansen i s al l eged t o have made

der ogat or y remar ks whi l e wor ki ng f or Wi l cox, t he cr ux of t he

Under l yi ng Compl ai nt i s Wi l cox' s cl ai m t hat Hansen i nt ent i onal l y

br eached hi s f i duci ar y dut i es as a cor por at e of f i cer . Accor di ng t o

Sent r y, Hansen' s wi l l f ul mi sconduct el i mi nat es al l possi bi l i t y t hat

he was act i ng "wi t h r espect t o" hi s dut i es as a Wi l cox vi ce

pr esi dent when he di spar aged Wi l cox and i t s pr oduct s. And, because

t he Pol i cy cover s cor por at e of f i cer s onl y "wi t h r espect t o" t hei r

dut i es as of f i cer s of Wi l cox, Sent r y woul d have us f i nd t hat

Wi l cox' s al l egat i ons of i nt ent i onal mi sconduct r el i eve i t of i t s

dut i es t o def end and i ndemni f y Hansen i n the under l yi ng l i t i gat i on.

We di scuss t hese ar gument s i n t ur n.

-14-



iii. Did any alleged damages occur during the Policy period?

We must f i r st addr ess Sent r y' s ar gument t hat Wi l cox

f ai l ed t o al l ege Hansen made di spar agi ng st at ement s about i t or i t s

pr oduct s dur i ng t he t i me of hi s empl oyment . Gi ven t hat Hansen onl y

pot ent i al l y qual i f i es f or cover age whi l e he wor ked f or Wi l cox, t hi s

i ssue i s pot ent i al l y di sposi t i ve.

Our r evi ew of t he recor d i ndi cat es t hat t he evi dence i n

t hi s r egar d i s not one- si ded. Al t hough t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt

does not pr ovi de a def i ni t i ve t i mef r ame i n whi ch such st atement s

were al l egedl y made, 5 Teet zel was much l ess uncer t ai n at hi s

deposi t i on. Al t hough Teet zel i ni t i al l y bal ked at assi gni ng a

t i mef r ame t o Hansen' s al l eged st at ement s, he event ual l y t est i f i ed

t hat Hansen "absol ut el y" made di spar agi ng st at ement s about Wi l cox

whi l e ser vi ng as i t s vi ce pr esi dent . 6

5 I ndeed, because Hansen mai nt ai ns t hat t he coverage di sput ewas not evi dent unt i l af t er Teet zel ' s deposi t i on, he necessar i l yconcedes t hat t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt does not , st andi ng al one,al l ege that Wi l cox was damaged dur i ng t he Pol i cy per i od.

6 We not e t hat Sent r y submi t t ed an af f i davi t f r om Teet zel ,al ong wi t h anot her Wi l cox of f i cer , Ti mot hy West , i n connect i on wi t hi t s mot i on f or summar y j udgment . Teet zel ' s af f i davi t st at es thatal t hough he t est i f i ed f r om hi s "gener al knowl edge" at hi sdeposi t i on, he "di d not have per sonal knowl edge of [ Hansen' s]st at ement s. " He f ur t her st at es t hat hi s under st andi ng i s t hatHansen "was maki ng these remarks whi l e act i ng as a consul t ant f or

Wi l cox, but not dur i ng hi s t i me as Vi ce Pr esi dent f or Wi l cox. "Si mi l ar l y, West aver s t hat he t oo i s not awar e of any i nst ance i nwhi ch Hansen made such st at ement s about Wi l cox dur i ng hi sempl oyment .

Even i f we wer e t o assume t hese post - deposi t i on af f i davi t s hadany val ue what soever at t he summary j udgment st age, st i l l t heywoul d not er ase Teet zel ' s deposi t i on test i mony t hat Hansen

-15-



Because Hansen i s opposi ng Sent r y' s summar y j udgment

mot i on, i t i s axi omat i c t hat , as t he nonmovi ng part y, we vi ew al l

i ssues of f act i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o hi s cl ai ms. See

Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56. Though Sent r y now asser t s t hat Teet zel di d not

actual l y t est i f y that Hansen harmed Wi l cox whi l e he was a vi ce

pr esi dent , a j ur y coul d concl ude t hat he had. Thus, vi ewi ng

Teetzel ' s t est i mony i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o Hansen, we

concl ude f or summary j udgment pur poses t hat Wi l cox cl ai ms Hansen

made some f al se and derogat or y r emar ks about Wi l cox whi l e he was

st i l l i t s vi ce pr esi dent . Thi s means t hat t he under l yi ng

l i t i gat i on seeks r ecover y f or damages whi ch, at l east i n par t ,

occur r ed dur i ng t he Pol i cy per i od.

Havi ng r eached t hi s concl usi on, t he quest i on t o be

r esol ved becomes whet her Sent r y owes a dut y t o def end and i ndemni f y

Hansen f r om and agai nst cl ai ms by Wi l cox t hat Hansen made f al se,

der ogat or y st at ement s about Wi l cox and i t s product s whi l e ser vi ng

as a Wi l cox vi ce pr esi dent . Put i n di f f er ent t er ms, we ask whet her

t he Pol i cy appl i es t o such al l egat i ons and, i f i t does, whet her

Hansen f al l s wi t hi n t he def i ni t i on of an "i nsur ed" gi ven Wi l cox' s

al l egat i ons agai nst hi m.

"absol ut el y" made such st at ement s whi l e a Wi l cox vi ce pr esi dent .Accor di ngl y, t hey do not hi ng t o di spel t he quest i on of f act as t owhen Hansen may have made di sparagi ng st at ements.

-16-



iv. General Principles of Insurance Policy Interpretation

For t he next st age of our j our ney, we wi l l r et ur n t o t he

Pol i cy pr ovi si ons we set f or t h ear l i er , but f i r st we di scuss t he

basi c pr i nci pl es of i nsur ance pol i cy i nt er pr et at i on i n New

Hampshi r e. " ' The f undament al goal of i nt er pr et i ng an i nsur ance

pol i cy . . . i s t o car r y out t he i nt ent of t he cont r acti ng

par t i es. ' " Gr eat Amer i can Di ni ng, I nc. v. Phi l adel phi a I ndem. I ns.

Co. , 62 A. 3d 843, 846 ( N. H. 2013) ( omi ssi on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng

Bat es v. Pheni x Mut . Fi r e I ns. Co. , 943 A. 2d 750, 752- 53 ( N. H.

2008) ) . An i nsurer seeki ng t o avoi d cover age "bears ' t he bur den of

pr oof concer ni ng t he cover age. ' " Ener gyNor t h, 452 F. 3d at 48

( quot i ng N. H. Rev. St at . Ann. § 491: 22- a) ; see al so U. S. Fi del i t y &

Guar . Co. v. J ohnson Shoes, I nc. , 461 A. 2d 85, 87 ( N. H. 1983) ( "The

bur den of est abl i shi ng noncover age i s upon t he i nsur er . " ) .

I n r evi ewi ng an i nsur ance pol i cy, we " l ook t o t he pl ai n

and or di nary meani ng of t he pol i cy' s words i n cont ext . " Gr eat

Amer i can Di ni ng, 62 A. 3d at 846. We appl y "an obj ect i ve st andard, "

i d. , t o " ' const r ue t he l anguage of an i nsur ance pol i cy as woul d a

r easonabl e per son i n t he posi t i on of t he [ put at i ve] i nsur ed based

on a more t han casual r eadi ng of t he pol i cy as a whol e, ' " Raudoni s,

623 A. 2d at 747 ( quot i ng Ni edzi el ski v. St . Paul Fi r e & Mar i ne I ns.

Co. , 589 A. 2d 130, 133 ( N. H. 1991) ) . I f we f i nd t hat a pol i cy' s

l anguage support s mor e t han one r easonabl e i nt er pr et at i on, at l east

one of whi ch woul d pr ovi de cover age, " t he pol i cy cont ai ns an

-17-



ambi gui t y and wi l l be const r ued agai nst t he i nsur er . " Gr eat

Amer i can Di ni ng, 62 A. 3d at 846 ( i nt er nal quotat i on mark omi t t ed) ;

see al so Br oom v. Cont ' l Cas. Co. , 887 A. 2d 1128, 1133 ( N. H. 2005)

( I f t her e i s any "doubt as t o whet her t he compl ai nt agai nst t he

i nsur ed al l eges a l i abi l i t y of t he i nsur er under t he pol i cy, t he

doubt must be r esol ved i n t he i nsur ed' s f avor . " ) .

Thi s case r equi r es us t o deter mi ne, above al l , whether

Sent r y owes Hansen a dut y t o def end. I n New Hampshi r e, an

i nsur er ' s " ' obl i gat i on t o def end i t s i nsur ed i s det er mi ned by

whet her t he cause of act i on agai nst t he i nsur ed al l eges suf f i ci ent

f act s i n t he pl eadi ngs t o br i ng i t wi t hi n t he expr ess t er ms of t he

pol i cy, even t hough the sui t may event ual l y be f ound t o be wi t hout

mer i t . ' " Whi t e Mt n. Cabl e Const . Co. v. Tr ansamer i ca I ns. Co. , 631

A. 2d 907, 909 ( N. H. 1993) ( quot i ng J ohnson Shoes, 461 A. 2d at 87) .

We ar e not shackl ed t o t he al l egat i ons pr eci sel y as t hey ar e

al l eged i n t he compl ai nt : we may " i nqui r e i nt o t he under l yi ng

f act s, " Ross, 773 A. 2d at 657, and we may exami ne each i ndi vi dual

count t o det er mi ne i t s "pur pose, " see Whi t e Mt n. Cabl e, 631 A. 2d

at 910. An "' i nsur er ' s obl i gat i on i s not mer el y t o def end i n cases

of per f ect decl ar at i ons, but al so i n cases wher e by any r easonabl e

i nt endment of t he pl eadi ngs l i abi l i t y of t he i nsur ed can be

-18-



i nf er r ed. ' " Ross, 773 A. 2d at 658 ( quot i ng Gr een Mt n. I ns. Co. v.

Foreman, 641 A. 2d 230, 232 ( N. H. 1994) ) . 7

As we pr evi ousl y not ed, t he Pol i cy pr ovi des cover age i f

t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt seeks damages ar i si ng out of "per sonal and

adver t i si ng i nj ur y. " To f al l wi t hi n t he t er ms of t he Pol i cy, an

al l egat i on t hat an execut i ve of f i cer i s l i abl e f or "per sonal and

adver t i si ng i nj ur y" must al l ege i nj ur y t hat ( 1) ar ose out of

Wi l cox' s busi ness, and (2) was caused by t he of f i cer i n the cour se

of hi s dut i es as a Wi l cox of f i cer . Wi l cox' s al l egat i ons f al l shor t

on bot h scores.

v. Do the alleged damages "arise out of" Wilcox's business?

We consi der f i r st whet her t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt

al l eges damages ar i si ng out of Wi l cox' s busi ness. Wi l cox al l eges

Hansen i nt ent i onal l y made f al se st atement s about Wi l cox and i t s

pr oduct s as par t of hi s at t empt s t o st eal Wi l cox' s cust omer s and

br i ng t hem over t o hi s company, ALST. The Under l yi ng Compl ai nt

expl i ci t l y cl ai ms t hat Hansen made such st at ement s i n f ur t her ance

7 Hansen al so cl ai ms t hat Sent r y owes hi ma dut y t o i ndemni f y. Thi s i nvol ves a separ at e i nqui r y, as an i nsur er ' s " ' dut y t o def endi s di st i nct f r om, and br oader t han, t he dut y t o i ndemni f y. ' " Gr eatAmer i can Di ni ng, 62 A. 3d at 854 ( quot i ng 14 L. Russ & T. Segal l a,Couch on I nsur ance 3d § 200: 1 at 200- 6 ( 2007) ) . I t i s "' t he f act s

act ual l y est abl i shed i n t he under l yi ng sui t [ t hat ] cont r ol t he dut yt o i ndemni f y. ' " I d. ( quot i ng J ul i o & Sons Co. v. Tr avel er s Cas.and Sur . Co. , 591 F. Supp. 2d 651, 657 ( S. D. N. Y. 2008) ) . Logi cal l yt hen, our i nqui r y f ocuses f i r st on whet her Sent r y has a dut y t odef end. I f we f i nd Sent r y has no dut y t o def end, i t f ol l ows t hat - -bei ng nar r ower t han t he dut y t o def end- - i t has no dut y t o i ndemni f yei t her .

-19-



of hi s own busi ness i nt er est s, not Wi l cox' s. Teet zel ' s deposi t i on

t est i mony i s consi st ent wi t h t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt ' s al l egat i ons

and does not hi ng t o al t er t he t hr ust of Wi l cox' s cl ai ms agai nst

hi m. I n f act , Hansen does not di sput e Teet zel ' s t est i mony t hat

Hansen engaged i n act i vi t i es on behal f of ALST dur i ng hi s

empl oyment wi t h Wi l cox, and t hat he went so f ar as t o wear cl ot hi ng

embl azoned wi t h ALST' s l ogo whi l e ost ensi bl y engaged i n consul t i ng

wor k f or Wi l cox. Accor di ngl y, we appl y t he pl ai n and or di nar y

meani ng of t he Pol i cy' s t er ms, and concl ude t hat t he under l yi ng

l i t i gat i on seeks recover y of damages ar i si ng out of Hansen' s and

ALST' s busi ness, not Wi l cox' s.

Thi s concl usi on i s f at al . Damages ar i si ng out of

anyt hi ng other t han Wi l cox' s busi ness ar e si mpl y not cover ed by t he

Pol i cy. No r easonabl e per son i n Hansen' s posi t i on coul d bel i eve

f r om a mor e t han casual r eadi ng of i t s pr ovi si ons t hat t he Pol i cy

pr ovi ded cover age f or damages ar i si ng out of Hansen' s or ALST' s

busi ness. See Gr eat Amer i can Di ni ng, 62 A. 3d at 846. Ther ef ore,

Wi l cox' s al l egat i ons as set f or t h i n t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt and

t est i f i ed t o by Teet zel do not t r i gger Sent r y' s dut y t o def end.

vi. Does the Underlying Complaint allege that Wilcox's damages

were caused by Hansen acting in the course of his duties as a

Wilcox officer?

Even i f we concl uded ( whi ch we don' t ) t hat Wi l cox' s

damages "ar ose out of " i t s busi ness r at her t han Hansen' s, t hi s

-20-



woul d not avai l Hansen. Bef or e expl ai ni ng why t hi s i s so, a shor t

pr i mer on New Hampshi r e' s cor por at e f i duci ar y l aw i s i n or der .

I t has l ong been recogni zed i n New Hampshi r e t hat a

cor por at e of f i cer owes f i duci ar y dut i es t o t he cor por at i on he or

she serves. Rosenbl um v. J udson Engi neer i ng Corp. , 109 A. 2d 558,

562 ( N. H. 1954) ; N. H. Rev. St at . Ann. § 293- A: 8. 42( a) ( r equi r i ng

cor por at e of f i cer s t o act "i n good f ai t h, " " wi t h t he car e t hat a

per son i n a l i ke posi t i on woul d r easonabl y exer ci se under si mi l ar

ci r cumst ances, " and " i n a manner t he of f i cer r easonabl y bel i eves t o

be i n t he best i nt er est s of t he cor por at i on") . Cor por at e of f i cer s

may pur sue i ndependent busi ness oppor t uni t i es, "but when t hey do

so, t hey ar e subj ect so f ar as t he cor por at e i nt er est i s concer ned

t o the r ul es whi ch appl y gener al l y t o per sons st andi ng i n a

f i duci ar y r el at i on. " Rosenbl um, 109 A. 2d at 562. To t hat end, a

cor por at e of f i cer has an over ar chi ng "dut y of ' r easonabl y

pr ot ect i ng and conser vi ng t he i nt er est s of t he cor por at i on, ' " i d.

( quot i ng Beaudet t e v. Gr aham, 165 N. E. 671, 673 ( Mass. 1929) ) , and

a showi ng of bad f ai t h i s not necessary t o show a br each of

f i duci ar y dut y, i d. at 563. Thus, under New Hampshi r e l aw, a

cor por at e of f i cer vi ol at es hi s f i duci ar y dut y when he act s i n a way

t hat i s cont r ar y t o, or har mf ul of , t he cor por at e i nt er est ,

r egar dl ess of whet her or not he has act ed i n bad f ai t h.

Wi t h t hi s l egal backdr op i n pl ace we t ur n our at t ent i on

t o Wi l cox' s speci f i c al l egat i ons agai nst Hansen i n t he Under l yi ng

-21-



Compl ai nt , keepi ng i n mi nd t hat t he Pol i cy onl y cover s Wi l cox' s

cor por at e of f i cer s as "i nsur eds" when t hey act i n connect i on wi t h

t hei r dut i es as cor por at e of f i cer s. We i nqui r e, t her ef or e, whet her

Wi l cox cl ai ms t hat i t was i nj ur ed by any of Hansen' s act s made i n

connect i on wi t h hi s posi t i on as vi ce pr esi dent .

Looki ng t o t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt , we observe f i r st

t hat Count VI I I ( t he one al l egi ng Hansen made di spar agi ng remarks

about Wi l cox) i s st yl ed as a cl ai m f or i nt ent i onal i nt er f er ence

wi t h cont r act ual r el at i ons. Whi l e we do not gi ve t hi s l abel

di sposi t i ve ef f ect , we do consi der i t pr obat i ve of t he count ' s

"pur pose, " see Whi t e Mt n. Cabl e, 631 A. 2d at 910, whi ch i s t o

r ecover damages f or har m Hansen i nt ent i onal l y caused Wi l cox.

Movi ng on t o t he subst ance of Count VI I I ' s al l egat i ons,

we f i nd t hat Wi l cox cl ai ms Hansen compet ed di r ect l y and unf ai r l y

wi t h i t , and t hat he ut i l i zed pr opr i et ar y i nf or mat i on he obt ai ned

whi l e a Wi l cox vi ce pr esi dent t o poach i t s exi st i ng and pot ent i al

cust omer s. The Count expl i ci t l y al l eges t hat Hansen i s "of f er i ng

ser vi ce cont r act s t o exi st i ng Wi l cox cust omer s, " and t hat he " i s

al so maki ng harmf ul f al se st atement s about Wi l cox and i t s

t echnol ogy whi l e market i ng hi s own pr oduct s t o Wi l cox cust omer s. "

The ot her count s set f or t h al l egat i ons t hat Hansen br eached hi s

wr i t t en nondi scl osur e agr eement , ut i l i zed Wi l cox' s pr opr i et ar y

i nf or mat i on and i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y t o devel op hi s own pr oduct s,

mi sappr opr i at ed t r ade secr et s, and ent er ed i nt o di r ect and unf ai r

-22-



compet i t i on agai nst Wi l cox. Wi l cox f ur t her al l eges t hat Hansen' s

use of Wi l cox' s pr opr i et ar y i nf or mat i on and i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y

i s "wi l l f ul and knowi ng, " and t hat hi s mi sappr opr i at i on of t r ade

secret s i s "wi l l f ul and mal i ci ous. "

The evi dence adduced i n di scover y ( at l east t hat whi ch

was br ought t o our at t ent i on) conf i r ms t hi s i s t he nat ur e of

Wi l cox' s cl ai ms agai nst Hansen. 8 I ndeed, Teet zel ' s deposi t i on

t est i mony i s f ul l y consi st ent wi t h t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt ' s

al l egat i ons t hat Hansen hel d hi msel f out t o Wi l cox' s cust omer s as

pr esi dent of ALST as par t of hi s ef f or t s t o secur e busi ness

opport uni t i es f or hi s own company. Nothi ng t o t he cont r ary appears

i n t he r ecor d.

Thus, i n bot h f or mand subst ance, Wi l cox al l eges t hat i t

has been harmed by Hansen' s i nt ent i onal act s- - mi sappr opr i at i on of

t r ade secr et s, unf ai r compet i t i on, and di spar agi ng and f al se

r emarks- - commi t t ed whi l e he was a Wi l cox vi ce pr esi dent and wi t h

t he goal of gai ni ng busi ness f or ALST. These al l eged act s ar e

di r ect l y cont r ar y t o Wi l cox' s i nt er est s and, i f pr oven, woul d

const i t ut e obvi ous breaches of hi s f i duci ar y dut y under New

Hampshi r e l aw. An i nt ent i onal br each of f i duci ar y dut y cl ear l y

8 Thus, whi l e Hansen spends t i me i n hi s br i ef specul at i ng t hathe may have negl i gent l y made st at ement s harmf ul t o Wi l cox as par tof hi s dut i es as vi ce pr esi dent , t hi s i s not what t he Under l yi ngCompl ai nt al l eges, nor does anyt hi ng t hat emer ged i n di scover yi ndi cat e t hat Wi l cox i s at t empt i ng t o hol d Hansen l i abl e f oranyt hi ng ot her t han i nt ent i onal act s.

-23-



f al l s out si de t he scope of Hansen' s dut i es as a Wi l cox vi ce

pr esi dent .

As we have expl ai ned, and pur suant t o the Pol i cy' s

unambi guous t er ms, Hansen onl y qual i f i es as an i nsured "wi t h

r espect t o" hi s dut i es as a vi ce pr esi dent . See Pol i cy, Sect i on

I I ( 1) ( d) . No r easonabl e per son i n Hansen' s posi t i on, upon a mor e

t han causal r eadi ng of t he Pol i cy, coul d expect t hat damages t o

Wi l cox caused by i t s own vi ce pr esi dent t hr ough i nt ent i onal act s

ant i t het i cal t o Wi l cox' s i nt er est s woul d be cover ed. We f i nd,

t her ef or e, t hat Hansen i s not an i nsur ed wi t h r espect t o any of t he

act s al l eged i n t he Under l yi ng Compl ai nt or r ef l ect ed i n t he

di scover y r ecor d.

vii. Recap

Summi ng up, we f i nd t hat Sent r y has demonst r at ed t hat ,

even i f Wi l cox' s al l egat i ons agai nst Hansen ar e pr oven t r ue, al l of

i t s cl ai ms f al l out si de t he Pol i cy' s cover age. Thus, Sent r y has no

dut y t o def end Hansen i n t he under l yi ng l i t i gat i on. And because

t he dut y t o def end i s br oader t han t he dut y t o i ndemni f y, i t

f ol l ows t hat Sent r y owes no dut y t o i ndemni f y ei t her . Fur t her , i n

l i ght of our concl usi on t hat Sent r y does not owe Hansen a dut y of

def ense and/ or i ndemni f i cat i on, t her e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d

t hat woul d per mi t a r easonabl e j ur y t o f i nd t hat Sent r y br eached

any cont r act wi t h Hansen. Accor di ngl y, Sent r y i s ent i t l ed t o

summary j udgment on t hat cl ai m as wel l .

-24-



III. CONCLUSION

Hansen' s cover age t heor y, however cr eat i ve, i s ul t i mat el y

wi t hout mer i t . The Pol i cy si mpl y does not pr ovi de cover age t o

Hansen when Wi l cox- - t he company he ser ved as a vi ce pr esi dent - -

cl ai ms t hat i t suf f er ed damages as a resul t of Hansen' s har mf ul and

i nt ent i onal act s. These al l egat i ons, i f pr oven, woul d const i t ut e

a br each of Hansen' s f i duci ary dut i es t o Wi l cox and are beyond t he

scope of Hansen' s dut i es as an execut i ve of f i cer . Ther ef or e, t hey

f al l out si de t he Pol i cy' s cover age.

Accor di ngl y, we af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s j udgment i n

i t s ent i ret y.

-25-

Documents

Hansen v. Sentry Insurance Company, 1st Cir. (2014)