Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Cincinnati Insurance Company

── Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Cincinnati Insurance Company ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 24-8077 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 23, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 24-8077 (D.C. No. 2:23-CV-00172-SWS) THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE (D. Wyo.) COMPANY, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company (“Cincinnati”) appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty”) which declared Cincinnati had a duty to defend Simon Contractors of Wyoming, Inc. (“Simon”) as an additional insured. Cincinnati also appeals from the denial of its cross-motion for summary judgment. After a thorough review of the record, and having the benefit of oral argument, we agree * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 24-8077 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 2 with the district court: under Wyoming law, Cincinnati had a duty to defend Simon. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I We begin in Part I by describing (A) the contracting parties and the additional insured policy, (B) the factual and procedural history of the underlying personal injury lawsuits, and (C) the factual and procedural history of this declaratory judgment suit. In Part II, we provide the applicable legal standards guiding our de novo review of this diversity case. Thereafter, in Part III, we frame the issue presented on appeal—i.e., whether the district court misinterpreted the additional insured policy. Part IV is our analysis and discussion. And we conclude by affirming in Part V. A Simon is a general contractor based in Wyoming. Relevant here, Simon was the general contractor for a highway construction project on Interstate 80 between Cheyenne and Pine Bluffs, Wyoming (the “Project”). On January 14, 2018, Simon and S&J Signs, Inc. (“S&J”) entered into a subcontract. Thereafter, S&J became one of Simon’s subcontractors for the Project. The subcontract is three pages long and contains two dozen provisions. Three are relevant here. First is the requirement that S&J “obtain and maintain” an insurance policy that “shall name [Simon]” as an additional insured. Aplt.’s App. at 24 (Subcontract, dated Jan. 14, 2018). Second, S&J agreed “[t]o adequately and properly protect” the 2  Appellate Case: 24-8077 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 3 Project with “lights, barriers, supports and guards.” Id. The third relevant provision is S&J’s agreement to defend