2005-068, TECH-BUILT 153, INC. v. VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC. a/k/a COMBINED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY & a.

summary judgment filed by the defendants, Virginia Surety Company, Inc. appeals an order of the Superior Court (Conboy, J.) granting motions for BRODERICK, C.J. The plaintiff, Tech-Built 153, Inc. (Tech-Built),

Resources, Inc. Jay E. Printzlau, of Londonderry, by brief, for defendant Surge

Insurance Company. orally), for defendant Virginia Surety Company, Inc. a/k/a Combined Specialty Wiggin & Nourie, P.A., of Manchester (Doreen F. Connor on the brief and

brief and orally), for the plaintiff. Law Office of David C. Dunn P.A., of Manchester (David C. Dunn on the Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address:

a/k/a COMBINED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY & a.

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. v.

errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. No. 2005-068 Hampshire, One Noble Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial Hillsborough–northern judicial district Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New ___________________________

a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00

well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as p. 2 Tech-Built appealed. workers’ compensation coverage only to Surge employees leased to Tech-Built. concluding that the insurance contract issued by Virginia Surety extended the “insured” line along with the term “etal [ shown above” in the insured mailing address line. Surge’s name is identified in an individual, a partnership or a corporation, and “[o]ther workplaces not

Tech-Built. From the interplay between the terms “et al.” and “additional

granted the motions for summary judgment filed by Surge and Virginia Surety,

following” introduces well over one hundred fifty listed companies, including phrase “Item (1) Insured of the Information page is amended to include the Locations” (hereinafter, endorsement), is inserted. In the endorsement, the

under the policy issued by Virginia Surety to Surge. The superior court Surge and its insurer, Virginia Surety, seeking workers’ compensation coverage award. Thereafter, Tech-Built initiated a declaratory judgment action against information page provides a place to insert information setting forth the Tech-Built, or to Tech-Built as a company. Item 1 of the policy’s pre-printed Virginia Surety extends coverage exclusively to Surge employees leased by

workplaces” caption, the phrase, “See A I/L Additional Named Insured and/or

liability insurance policy issued by Virginia Surety. Built was liable under RSA 281-A:7 to pay Thomas’ workers’ compensation particular jobs. Surge operates under a workers’ compensation and employers’ The parties dispute whether the insurance policy Surge secured from

a fall he suffered while working on site.

did not carry workers’ compensation insurance, the DOL determined that Techagreement in which Surge agreed to furnish staff to Tech-Built to perform the New Hampshire Department of Labor (DOL). Because the subcontractor Thomas secured an award for workers’ compensation coverage through

Thomas. On March 11, 2003, Thomas sustained serious injuries as a result of Tech-Built’s subcontractors. We affirm. (subcontractor) to perform framing, and the subcontractor in turn hired Scott Tech-Built, a client of Surge, for injuries sustained by an employee of one of condominium project in Weare. It contracted with another company by Virginia Surety to Surge did not provide workers’ compensation coverage to Tech-Built served as a general contractor for work performed at a

and Surge, an employee leasing company, entered into a client service corporation involved in the construction industry. In April 1999, Tech-Built The undisputed facts are as follows. Tech-Built is a New Hampshire

Resources, Inc. (Surge). The trial court ruled that an insurance policy issued a/k/a Combined Specialty Insurance Company (Virginia Surety) and Surge the policy states:

p. 3 companies. Specifically, paragraph E of the “GENERAL SECTION” portion of

[ acknowledge that Item 1 of the information page itself references Surge “etal 3

endorsement, namely Tech-Built and the more than one hundred fifty other for that employer extended to all “workplaces” of that employer listed in the single employer was named as the insured, namely Surge, and that coverage

insured if you are an employer named in Item 1 of the Information Page.” We

facts decision. We review the trial court’s application of the law to the

the policy itself, however, reveals that the contracting parties anticipated that a entitled “Additional Named Insured and/or Locations.” Other language within sic]” and the “[o]ther workplaces” subsection references the endorsement

Similarly, in the section entitled “Who Is Insured,” the policy states: “You are Information Page) and us (the insurer named on the Information Page).” contract of insurance between you (the employer named in Item 1 of the judgment as a matter of law, we will affirm the trial court’s The “GENERAL SECTION” of the insurance policy declares it as “a

(court construes insurance policy as it does any other contract). EnergyNorth Natural Gas v. Continental Ins. Co., 146 N.H. 156, 159 (2001) discerns parties’ intent from plain meaning of language used in contract); Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Groff, 148 N.H. 333, 336-37 (2002) (court generally parties’ intent, we first examine the language of the contract itself. See policies is that intent of parties at time policy sold controls). To discern the 1998) (cardinal principle in construction and interpretation of insurance time of agreement); Lemars Mut. Ins. Co. v. Joffer, 574 N.W.2d 303, 307 (Iowa inquiry in interpreting contracts centers on determining intent of parties at Coakley v. Maine Bonding & Cas. Co., 136 N.H. 402, 409 (1992) (fundamental policy, as in all contracts, is to carry out the intent of the contracting parties. genuine issue of material fact, and if the moving party is entitled to (2003) (quotation omitted). The fundamental goal of interpreting an insurance moving party. If our review of the evidence does not reveal any this court to decide.” properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non- Godbout v. Lloyd’s Ins. Syndicates, 150 N.H. 103, 105 “The interpretation of insurance policy language is a question of law for

(citations omitted). Dalton Hydro LLC v. Town of Dalton, 153 N.H. ___, ___, 889 A.2d 24, 26 (2005)

de novo.

we consider the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences

When we review a trial court’s grant of summary judgment,

its argument that it is a named insured under the policy. We do not agree. named insured,” and the language in the endorsement, Tech-Built constructs which the agreement was negotiated,”

p. 4 employees. secure a workers’ compensation insurance policy that covered its leased

by the contracting parties in light of “the circumstances and the context in

dogmatic adherence to insurance maxims.

Indeed, it is evident that Surge was simply fulfilling its statutory obligation to

Indeed, when interpreting written agreements, we consider the language used

extrinsic evidence, as in this case, we will not ignore that evidence in favor of

insureds rather than different work locations for Surge’s leased p. 4 employees. the insurer in favor of coverage.

not dispute the meaning and intent of the leasing agreement for Surge to (court reviewed objective extrinsic evidence to clarify intrinsic ambiguity). Job Function Positions under the terms of this Agreement.” Tech-Built does compensation coverage only for its leased p. 4 employees. 93 B 13926, 1996 WL 596359, at *13-14 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 16, 1996) lease agreement as the final and clear expression by Surge to secure workers’ Cf. In re Rose Investments Inc., No. genuine dispute of material fact concerning the clear intent memorialized in the intent of the contracting parties can be conclusively resolved by objective Indem., 151 N.H. 699, 701 (2005). We conclude, however, that where the

seem to be little need for the same companies to be listed in such a repetitive regarding the scope and extent of insurance coverage. Further, when a endorsement listed multiple times but with different locations. There would of the insurance contract to discern the intent of the contracting parties We acknowledge that, in general, we do not look beyond the four corners

compensation insurance covering all Surge Resources, Inc. employees filling

beyond Surge’s leased employees, we conclude that the documents create no documents to demonstrate that the intended scope of the policy extended

See RSA 277-B:9, II (1999). While Tech-Built points to certain

but only named insureds. Moreover, there are several companies in the

leasing agreement provides that “Surge . . . shall furnish . . . workers’ clearly displayed in its leasing agreement with Tech-Built. In particular, the Moreover, Surge’s intent in securing workers’ compensation coverage is

nonsensical. That is, there would be no other “workplaces listed in Item[ ] 1,” than various workplaces of Surge’s leased employees, paragraph E would be If all the companies listed in the endorsement were named insureds, rather

for such workplaces. 3.A. states unless you have other insurance or are self-insured the Information Page; and it covers all other workplaces in Item This policy covers all of your workplaces listed in Items 1 or 4 of p. 4 employees. We see no reason to disagree with the trial court’s interpretation. p. 5 circumstances, that is, to the limited extent Tech-Built used Surge’s leased insurance policy identified Tech-Built as a named insured under certain

the pleadings to mean that Surge and Virginia Surety agreed that the companies listed in the endorsement.

similar response in its answer. During the hearing, the trial court interpreted leased either to Tech-Built or to the other more than one hundred fifty coverage is applicable to the facts of this matter.” Virginia Surety provided a set forth in [the named insured paragraph], but denies any inference that said

provide workers’ compensation coverage solely for Surge’s employees who were between Surge and Tech-Built, was intended by the contracting parties to insured paragraph). In its answer, Surge replied that it “admits the allegations conclude that the Virginia Surety policy, as informed by the leasing agreement

identifies Surge and Tech-Built (among others) as named insureds” (named undisputed facts of this case, such a result would be absurd. Accordingly, we contesting coverage. In Tech-Built’s petition, it averred that “The Policy Built, this admission should preclude Surge and Virginia Surety from

DALIANIS, DUGGAN and GALWAY, JJ., concurred.

fair reading of the policy as informed by the contracting parties’ clear intent. numerous companies identified in the policy endorsement constitutes the only workers’ compensation coverage exclusively to Surge employees it leases to the In sum, we conclude that interpreting the insurance policy to extend have workers’ compensation coverage as in the case before us. Based upon the numbers of employees and to the employees of subcontractors that may not Tech-Built is a “named insured” under the policy. Thus, according to Techcompensation coverage to the extensive list of companies with, perhaps, untold

Surety admitted in their answers to its petition for declaratory judgment that considered named insureds. Thus, the policy would extend workers’ As a final matter, Tech-Built contends that both Surge and Virginia

listed in the endorsement, over one hundred fifty businesses, would be Under Tech-Built’s reading of the insurance policy, all of Surge’s clients

other contracts, EnergyNorth Natural Gas, 146 N.H. at 159. 336, and we typically construe insurance policies in the same manner as we do