WPCB' m0ym_nR*.8~(`ZC%"7Lb:ۣ PЂ0bc֭ ΫNd70;\3Nl(NL sP2Z4#6E- 8s&P! شRiJi zqT0HI]+lUIle aGɌiʖNHl"rEhxᏩw}#䯘hPM hJhD\pK_-Atn5'&B"@/Fp^;u$'xy ;Iwmկ"4 l*Q=6#3_OK} xK!KAIen 2" YiXPE &w1GQ ُs^$B]H'tT 7*c؁~8|K-lƝ5"#~nubE;+`7i̓ԉB%(#0UN %? 0GEU: 0D 0 nTN U8 UF@ ^ w 4   E f a m M N7 ;9 Nt v <<^>UBbU>$^bE M e B%'HP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0vr Z6Times New Roman RegularX($ XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(#$  0  (F:2M$ ! XOXXX        0  <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@<4 9Z+ Courier New <  9Z+.Courier New Regulaȓ2s 6x26X?,}backup3|xTABLE AU C M$ XFXXX      1    _CoplaintiffsJewelersMutualInsuranceCo.,Art,Inc.,and  KemperNationalInsuranceCo.aretherelevantinsurersfor  Astoria,Shah,andEclipse,respectively.Thedistrictcourtfound \ _Barquet_Ԁliable,invaryingsums,toJewelersMutual,Art,Kemper, 2 andShah.AstoriaandEclipsearenotpartiestothisappeal.  1#Xd#  M$ XFXXX      3    _TheSlipProForma,orsummary,attachedtothepolicystated  thatcoverageisforjewelry"beingthepropertyoftheAssured  and/orforwhichtheybeartherisksofinsurance."Thepolicy \ alsocontainedanexpressexclusionfor"goodsentrustedtothe 2 Assuredbyprivateclientsand/orcustomerssolelyforsafe X custody";however,nosuchexpressexclusionexistedforgoodsleft . solelyforsafecustodybyothertypesofindividuals.  M$ XFXXX      5    __Barquet_Ԁbrieflychallengeswhether_Reisman_,asopposedto  Weinberg,wasproperlyapartytothe_depositum_Ԁcontractbecause  Weinberg,andnot_Reisman_,askedforpermissionandplacedthebags \ inthevault._Barquet_Ԁmoreoverchallengeswhether_Reisman_Ԁor 2 WeinbergwererepresentativesofcoplaintiffsShahandEclipse. X Theseargumentswerenotaddressedbythedistrictcourtandwere . notadequatelyraisedby_Barquet_Ԁbelow._Barquet_,initsstatement   ofcontestedfactsinoppositiontotheplaintiffs'motionfor   summaryjudgment,"denied"thatWeinbergand_Reisman_Ԁhada `  representativerelationshipwithAstoria,Shah,andEclipse,and 6   statedthatthisfactwas"incontroversy,"butitprovidedno  \  furtherelaborationanywhereonthisargument.Further,nothing  2  wassaidbelowabout_Reisman_Ԁnotbeingapartytothe_depositum_   contract.Theseargumentsareforfeited.See,e.g.,B&TMasonry   Constr.Co.v.Pub.Serv.Mut.Ins.Co.,382F.3d36,41(1stCir. d  2004).L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -\( 9Z+&Courier Regular  M$ XFXXX      6    _Weacknowledgethat_Barquet_Ԁisnowfacingsubstantial  liabilitydespitereceivingnocompensationforholdingthe  depositedjewelry.Butthestandardofcareimposedona \ depositaryunderPuertoRicolawappearstobethesameregardless 2 ofwhetherthedepositaryreceivesanythinginreturnforholding X thedepositeditems.Thisisdifferentfromthetraditionalrule . undercommonlawbailment,whichusesdifferentstandardsofcare   fordifferentsortsof_bailments_Ԁandholdsanuncompensatedbailee   liableonlyforgrossnegligence.SeeRubin,supra,at826;see `  alsoLa.Civ.CodeAnn.art.2930(imposinghigherstandardon 6   compensated_depositaries_ԀundertheLouisianalawofdeposit).  \  PuertoRicoexplicitlyrejectedanapproachthatwouldhave  2  establisheddifferentstandardsofcarefordifferenttypesof   _depositum_Ԁcontracts,insteadadoptingaunifiedbutflexible   standardthe"goodfatherofafamily"standardthattakes d  intoaccountthespecificcircumstancesofeachcase.See_Ocasio_, :  102P.R._Offic_.Trans.at20911.  M$ XFXXX      2    __Natalio_'saccountissomewhatdifferentonthispoint.He  statedindepositionthatWeinbergneverattemptedtomakea  businessappointmentwithhisfatherandthat_Natalio_Ԁindicatedno \ interestinWeinberg'sjewelry. L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT- -   M$ XFXXX      4    __Barquet_,citingtheSupremeCourtofSpain,alsocontends  thatno_depositum_Ԁcontractcouldformbecausethepartiesintended  toleavethejewelryinthevaultasmerepreparationfor \ subsequentcontractualnegotiationsbetweenWeinbergand_Barquet_ 2 over_Barquet_'spurchaseofjewelry.SeeTSofSpain,June14,1960 X (_R.J._,No.2093)(no_depositum_Ԁcontractwhereplatformcarwas . deliveredtocompanyforinspectionsothatpriceofcontract   performingworkoncarcouldbedetermined).Evenassumingthat   thePuertoRicoSupremeCourtwouldadopttheSpanishlawonwhich `  _Barquet_ԀreliesandeventakingWeinberg'stestimonyastrue,the 6   itemsherewerenotleftaspartofnegotiationsforafuture  \  contract._Barquet_'sstoreofferedaconvenientdropoffpoint  2  becauseofthenextmorning'smeeting.However,Weinbergdidnot   leavethebagsfor_Barquet_Ԁtoinspectpendingthatmeeting;heleft   theminsteadbecausehewantedthemtobekeptsafewhilehewent d  elsewhere. d ! XFXXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'Te ? * !X2PXX XFXX2P     `%7+UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsG  FortheFirstCircuit  JG XFX J  $A') ` dE< ` A      `     h No.041925 K    @@(( JEWELERSMUTUALINSURANCECOMPANY;P&SSHAHENTERPRISES,INC.;  G  ART,INC.;KEMPERNATIONALINSURANCECO.,    @Plaintiffs,Appellees, y  @dd ASTORIAMANUFACTURINGCOMPANY,INC.;ECLIPSECOLLECTION,INC., %u  @XX%Plaintiffs, !   v. } q  N.BARQUET,INC.d/b/aJOYER0ASBARQUET, )y Defendant,ThirdPartyPlaintiff,Appellant, % v.  INTEGRANDASSURANCECOMPANY;EUROPEANUNDERWRITERSAGENCYLTD., -} ThirdPartyDefendants,Appellees. ) A') ` dE<` A  APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT j  FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO @ ! [Hon.JaimePieras,Jr.,SeniorU.S.DistrictJudge] !<# A') ` dE<#` A #% @@'Before }$' @@((Lynch,Lipez,andHoward,CircuitJudges. )&y!) A') ` dE<'` A '%#+       FranciscoA.RosaSilva,withwhomRosaSilva&RosaDomnech, ( $- PSC,wasonbrief,fordefendant,thirdpartyplaintiff,appellant )$. N.Barquet,Inc. f*%/   RobertoAbesadaAget,withwhomHaroldD.VicenteandVicente <+&0 &Cuebaswereonbrief,forplaintiffs,appelleesJewelersMutual ,b'1 InsuranceCo.etal. ,8(2   WilliamReyesElias,withwhomReyesEliasLawOfficewason -)3?# ` 8FXXdd8   brief,forthirdpartydefendant,appellee,IntegrandAssurance  Company.    PaulS.Hugel,withwhomClayman&Rosenbergwasonbrief,for \ thirdpartydefendant,appelleeEuropeanUnderwritersAgencyLtd. 2    X *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +     7  SI > @38496@SMay25,2005 RHC  " @38496 @ R(    (* !  XFXX XF  *,X` XX*=FXXdd= # XFXX XF#_ d-(3 %7+ % %   XFXX XF8FXXdXXd8$=FXXdXXd= ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge. InthisPuertoRicodiversity  actionweareaskedtoapplyacivillawconcept,the"_depositum_ x contract,"whichhassomesimilaritieswith,butisnotidentical $t to,commonlawbailment.The_depositum_Ԁcontractisanarrangement   whereonepartydeliversitemstoanotherforthepurposeof |  temporarilyholdingandpreservingthoseitems.UnderthePuerto ( x  RicoCivilCode,thedepositaryispresumedtoperformitsduties $  fornocompensation.31P.R.LawsAnn.4641.    ` Twotravelingjewelrysalesmenaskedforandweregranted ,|  permissiontoleavetwobagsofjewelry,worthseveralhundred ( thousanddollars,atavaultindefendant'sjewelrystoreinOld  SanJuan.Thedefendant,_Natalio_Ԁ_Barquet_,Inc.("_Barquet_"),left 0 thevaultopenduringthedayandwhenthesalesmenreturnedthe , nextmorning,theirjewelrybagsweregone.Theownersofthelost  waressued_Barquet_.Thedistrictcourtgrantedsummaryjudgment 4 fortheplaintiffs,holdingasmatteroflawthata_depositum_ 0 contractwasformedandthatthedefendantbreacheditsobligations   underthecontract. 8!"  ` Weaffirm.Thedistrictcourtcorrectlyheldthata "4$ _depositum_Ԁcontractwasformed:thegoodsweredeliveredbythe $& salesmenandwillinglyacceptedintothecustodyandcontrolofthe <&!( defendant,whichbyitsactionsimpliedlyconsentedtotakeonthe '8#* obligationsofadepositary.Moreover,noreasonablejurycould )$, findthatthedefendantmetitsstatutorystandardofcareundera @+&. _depositum_Ԁcontract.Finally,weaffirmsummaryjudgmentagainst  _Barquet_Ԁonitsthirdpartyclaimsthatoneofitsinsurershada \ dutytodefenditinthislitigation,andthatanotherhasaduty X toindemnifyitforitsliabilityforbreachofthe_depositum_   contract. `    I.   \  EA.TheLostJewelryandtheAlleged_Depositum_ԀContract $   ` Mostoftheimportantfactsinthiscaseareundisputed.   InOctober2000,twojewelrysalesmenfromNewYork,Robert ,|  Weinbergandhisnephew,Jeffrey_Reisman_,traveledtoPuertoRico ( inordertoseesomeclientsandattempttoselltheirjewelry.   Bothmenworkedasindependentsalesmenwhoownedtheirown 0 separatecompanies.TheyeachtraveledtoPuertoRicowithcertain , itemsofjewelry,carriedinbags.Thebagscontainedalarge  volumeofrelativelylowcostitems;muchofthejewelrywascubic 4 zirconia.Weinbergestimatedthat_Reisman_'sbagweighed80or90 0 pounds;_Reisman_Ԁestimatedthathisownbagweighedabout60pounds.     ` MostofthejewelrycarriedbyWeinbergand_Reisman_Ԁon 8!" theOctober2000businesstripwasstockbelongingtoother "4$ companieswhomadejewelry.MostofthejewelryinWeinberg'sbag $& camefromcoplaintiffAstoriaJewelryManufacturing,Inc. <&!( ("Astoria");mostofthejewelryin_Reisman_'sbagcamefromco '8#*  plaintiffsP&SShahEnterprises,Inc.("Shah")andEclipse )$, Collection,Inc.("Eclipse")._ #  1      _ Weinbergand_Reisman_Ԁheldthe   jewelryfromthesecompaniesinordertoselltheirproductsand x receivedcommissionsfromthejewelrycompaniesforthesales. $t Someoftheproductspossessedby_Reisman_ԀandWeinbergcouldbe   solddirectlytocustomers;othersweremerelylowcostsamples |  thatacustomercouldexaminebeforedecidingtoorderthereal ( x  itemsfromAstoria,Shah,andEclipse.  $   ` OnOctober23,2000,_Reisman_ԀandWeinbergweretraveling   aroundPuertoRicoinarentedcar;theywerevisitingvarious ,|  potentialcustomersandattemptingtomakesales. Duringtheearly ( afternoon,Weinbergvisitedthejewelrystoreofdefendant_Barquet_,  inOldSanJuan,while_Reisman_Ԁremainedinthecarwiththejewelry L bags,parkedinfront. _Barquet_ԀwasoneofWeinberg'sregular H customersbutnotoneof_Reisman_'sregularcustomers.Weinberg  knewtheownersof_Barquet_Ԁwellandwouldgenerallystopintosay P hellowhenhewasinthearea.  L  ` _Natalio_Ԁ_Barquet_,Jr.("_Natalio_")isvicepresidentof   _Barquet_;hisfather(whohasthesamenameashisson)is T!" president.Uponarrivingat_Barquet_,Weinbergspoketo_Natalio_ #P$ because_Natalio_'sfatherwasnotthere.Weinbergrelatesthathe $& showed_Natalio_Ԁsomebracelets,and_Natalio_Ԁseemedinterestedin X&!( potentiallypurchasingsomeofWeinberg'sjewelryforhisstore;  _Natalio_Ԁwantedhisfathertoseetheitemsthenextmorning. \ Weinbergstatesthathetold_Natalio_Ԁhewouldreturntothe_Barquet_ X storeat10:00thenextmorning._" #  2      _Ԁ     ` Weinbergand_Reisman_Ԁhadanotherbusinessappointmentat `  ashoppingcenterlaterthatafternoonandtheydidnotwantto  \  taketheirbagsofjewelrytothatappointment. Weinbergrelates   thatheasked_Natalio_:"Listen,aslongasIhaveanappointment   heretomorrowmorning,mayIputmybagsawayhere?ThatwayI ,|  don'thavetohavethemwithmewhenIgomaketheseother ( appointments."_Natalio_Ԁresponded:"Fine."_Natalio_Ԁgaveasimilar  account:hestatedindepositionthatWeinberg"asked...for 0 permission[to]leavehisbaginthestoreandcomebackforit , later,"and_Natalio_Ԁgrantedsuchpermission.Therewasnofurther  discussionofanytermsrelatingtoWeinberg'sleavingthejewelry 4 bags. 0  ` Weinbergthenwentoutsidetotherentalcartoget   _Reisman_Ԁandthebags,andeitherWeinbergaloneorWeinbergand 8!" _Natalio_Ԁcarriedthebagsthroughthestoreandintoabackroom "4$ whereavaultwaslocated._Natalio_ԀaccompaniedWeinbergintothis $& backroomwhereeitherWeinbergaloneorWeinbergand_Natalio_ <&!( placedthebagsintothevault. Weinbergleftthestoreanddrove  offwith_Reisman_.Thetwocamebackthenextmorningtoretrieve \ thebags,butthebagsweremissingfromthesafe.Abagleftby X anothersalesmaninthesamesafewasnottaken.Apolicereport   wasfiled,butnobodyhaseverdiscoveredtheexactfateofthe `  bags.SeeAstoriaJewelryv._Natalio_Ԁ_Barquet_,Inc.,291F.Supp.  \  2d16,20(_D.P.R._Ԁ2003).    ` Weinbergand_Reisman_Ԁhadlefttheirjewelrybagsatthe d  _Barquet_Ԁstorebefore. _Natalio_Ԁstatedthatheandhisfather `  customarilyallowedsalespeopletoleavetheirbagsinhisvault,   "[_a]s_Ԁacourtesy,"whenheorhisfatherknewthemandtheyasked h permission. Writtenagreementswereneversignedinconnection d withthesetransactions,anddetaileddiscussionsoftermsnever  occurred._Natalio_Ԁdescribedtheentirepracticeas"very l customary,veryslack,notserious,and...involvingno h stipulationastowhatthepersonleavesandwhenheorshemight  comebackandpickitup."  p   ` Whenthe_Barquet_Ԁstorewasclosed,itwasprotectedwith !l" analarmsystemandgates.Aswell,thevaultsweretimelocked "$ whenthestorewasclosed,includingthenightofOctober23. When t$& the_Barquet_Ԁstorewasopen,however,itisundisputedthatboth  &p!( _Barquets_,fatherandson,knewthatthevaultwasalwaysopenand '#* unlocked.Thevaultwherethebagswereplacedislocatedina x)$, backroomofthestore,accessiblefromtherestofthestore;both $+t&. thefatherandthesonalsostatedthatcustomerscould,inthe  ordinarycourseofbusiness,beleftbythemselvesinthatareaof \ thestore,withoutbeingaccompaniedbyanemployee.Therewere X securitycamerasinsidethestore,andseveralvideomonitorsthat   employeescouldusetowatchthescenesbeingcapturedbythe `  cameras.However,the_Barquets_Ԁknewthatthecameraswerenotset  \  uptoleaveanyvideotapedrecordofwhatwentoninsidethestore.   Further,nosecuritypersonnelwerehiredtowatchthemonitors: d  theregularstoreemployeeswerechargedwiththisduty,alongwith `  theirotherduties,suchasassistingcustomers.Finally,_Natalio_   andoneofhisemployeestestifiedindepositionthattheyfeltno h needtotakeanymeasurestosafeguardthejewelrybagsleftin d theirvault._Natalio_Ԁstatedaffirmativelythathetook"[_n]o_  _measure[s_]whatsoever"totakecareofWeinbergand_Reisman_'sbags l whiletheywereinsidethevault,becauseWeinbergwasmerely h "_ask[ing_]forafavor."   B._Barquet_'sInsurance  p    ` _Barquet_Ԁarguesthatit hadcontractedfortwotypesof !l" insurancethatarerelevanttothisaction.First,_Barquet_ "$ contractedwiththirdpartydefendant_Integrand_ԀAssuranceCo. t$& ("_Integrand_")forcommercialgeneralliabilityinsurance.Astoria  &p!( Jewelry,291F.Supp.2dat20.Thistypeofinsurancewas '#* intendedtoprotect_Barquet_Ԁfromliabilitytothirdpartiesdueto x)$, "bodilyinjury"or"propertydamage."However,thepolicycoverage $+t&. hadvariousexceptions.Thecriticalexclusionforpurposesof  thiscasewasthatthepolicydidnotapplyto"propertydamageto \ personalpropertyinthecare,custody,orcontroloftheinsured." X  Thepolicyalsostatedthat_Integrand_Ԁhada"rightanddutyto   defend"anylawsuitseekingdamagestowhichtheinsuranceapplies, `  butitwould"havenodutytodefendtheinsuredagainstany'suit'  \  seekingdamagesfor'bodilyinjury'or'propertydamage'towhich   thisinsurancedoesnotapply." d   ` Thesecondinsurancepolicythat_Barquet_Ԁpointstoisa `  jeweler'sblockinsurancepolicyitretainedfromthirdparty   defendantEuropeanUnderwriters("EU").SeeAstoriaJewelry,291 h F.Supp.2dat20.Accordingtothepolicy'sscheduleofcoverage, d coveragein_Barquet_'scaseonlyappliedtolossesordamageto  _Barquet_'s"Stock(includingotherpeople'sgoods)." #  3       l e ` Jeweler'sblockinsuranceisacomplextypeofinsurance h thatcoversabroadcombinationofrisksanddangersfacedby  jewelers.Seegenerally1CouchonInsurance1.57. Theparties p  agreethatcoverageof_Barquet_'s"Stock(includingotherpeople's !l" goods)"was"allrisk"inthesensethatcoverageincludedall "$ possiblewaysstockcouldbedamagedorlostexceptthoseexpressly t$& excludedbyalimitationorexclusionclauseinthepolicy.See,  e.g.,GoldenDoorJewelryCreations,Inc.v.LloydsUnderwriters \ NonMarine_Ass'n_,8F.3d760,763(11thCir.1993).Relevantto X thiscase,thepolicyincludedwhatitcalleda"LockedShowcase   Warranty,"whichstated:"Itisaconditionprecedenttoall `  liabilityof[EU],inrespectoflossbyTheft,thatwhilstthe  \  premisesareopenforbusiness,allshowcases,safesandcupboards   containingStock,andtherearofalldisplaywindowsbelockedand d  keysremovedtherefrom,otherthanduringtheprocessofitemsbeing `  addedorremovedbyaresponsibleauthorizedperson."Also,losses   tostockwereexpresslynotcoverediftheywerearesultof"stock h takinglosses,unexplainedshortagesandmysteriousdisappearances."  d   II.      ` CoplaintiffsShah,Astoria,Eclipseandtheirrespective  insurersfiledsuitagainst_Barquet_ԀinPuertoRicofederaldistrict 4 courtonOctober18,2001,aboutoneyearafterthebagswerelost, 0 seekingdamagesequaltothevalueofthelostjewelryplus   interest,aswellasattorney'sfees.Jurisdictionwaspremisedon 8!" diversity;theplaintiffs'theorywasthat,underPuertoRicolaw, "4$ _Barquet_Ԁhadenteredintoa"voluntaryandgratuitous_depositum_ $& contract"withWeinbergand_Reisman_Ԁtosafeguardthebagsofjewelry <&!( whiletheywerelocatedinthe_Barquet_Ԁvault.Thecoplaintiffs '8#*  allegedthatbynottakingadequateprecautionstoensureagainst )$, theft,_Barquet_Ԁwasinbreachofthetermsofthat_depositum_Ԁcontract  andthereforewasliableforthevalueofthelostjewelry . \   ` Afterthecomplaintwasfiled,_Barquet_Ԁcontacted $t _Integrand_,itscommercialliabilityinsurer,requestingthat   _Integrand_Ԁtakeover_Barquet_'slegaldefenseundertheinsurance |  policy'sdutytodefendclause._Integrand_Ԁinitiallyprovided ( x  _Barquet_Ԁwithanattorney , but,afterfurtherreviewingthe $  complaint# XFXX XF# XFXX XF,determinedthatanydamagesunderthefactsandlegal   theoryallegedinthecomplaintwerenotcoveredbyitsinsurance H  policy,# XFXX XF[# XFXX XFԀandinstructeditsattorneytowithdrawfromthecase. D _Integrand_Ԁstatedthatthe_depositum_Ԁcontractallegedtohavebeen  formedandbreachedinthecomplaintpresupposedthatthejewelry L bagswerein_Barquet_'s"care,custody,orcontrol"andthusany H damagesfellunderoneofthepolicy'sexclusions.    ` OnApril3,2002,_Barquet_Ԁfiledathirdpartycomplaint P againstboth_Integrand_ԀandEU,itsjeweler'sblockinsurer._Barquet_ L allegedthat_Integrand_Ԁhadwronglyfailedtodefend_Barquet_Ԁinthe   principalaction.Moreover,_Barquet_Ԁallegedthatmonetarycoverage T!" underoneorbothofthe_Integrand_ԀandEUpoliciescouldapply, #P$ dependingonthefactsthatdevelopedduringlitigation,andthus $& eitherorbothinsurersmightberequiredtoreimburse_Barquet_Ԁfor X&!( itsliabilitytothecoplaintiffjewelers,intheeventthatthose (T#*  jewelersprevailedintheprincipalactionagainst_Barquet_. )%,  ` Allpartiesinthecasemovedforsummaryjudgment.By   orderdatedOctober29,2003,thedistrictcourtgrantedtheco \ plaintiffs'motionforsummaryjudgmentagainst_Barquet_.See X AstoriaJewelry,291F.Supp.2dat32.Thedistrictcourtheld   thattheundisputedfactsestablishedthat_Barquet_ԀandWeinbergand `  _Reisman_Ԁhadenteredintoa_depositum_ԀcontractunderPuertoRicolaw  \  whenWeinbergaskedifhecouldleavethejewelrybagsin_Barquet_'s   vault,_Barquet_Ԁagreed,andthejewelrybagswereactuallyplacedin d  thevault.Seeid.at2426.Further,thedistrictcourtheldthat `  oncethe_depositum_Ԁcontracthadbeenformed,_Barquet_,accordingto   PuertoRicocivillaw,undertooktocarefortheitemsas"agood h fatherofafamily"solongastheyremainedinitsvault.Seeid. d at27.Basedontheundisputedfacts,andparticularly_Barquet_'s  failuretolockorclosethevaultduringtheday,thedistrict l courtheldthat_Barquet_Ԁdidnotmeetthisstandard.Id.at29. h  ` Inthesameorder,thedistrictcourtgrantedthesummary  judgmentmotionsof_Integrand_ԀandEUontheclaimsfiledby_Barquet_ p  againstthem.Thedistrictcourtheldthat_Barquet_Ԁwasnotentitled !l" tocoveragefrom_Integrand_'scommercialliabilitypolicybecause "$ _Barquet_'sliabilitytothecoplaintiffjewelersunderthe_depositum_ t$& contracttheoryfellunderthe"care,custody,orcontrol"exclusion  &p!( inthepolicy.Seeid.at2930.Thedistrictcourtdidnot '#* explicitlyaddress_Barquet_'sdutytodefendclaimagainst_Integrand_. x)$, Thedistrictcourtheldthat_Barquet_ԀreceivednocoveragefromEU's $+t&. jeweler'sblockpolicyeither,forthreeindependentreasons.  First,thejewelrybagsatissuedidnotconstitutepartof \ _Barquet_'s"Stock(includingotherpeople'sgoods)."Seeid.at30. X Second,coveragewasbarredbythe"LockedShowcaseWarranty,"   because_Barquet_Ԁhadleftitsvaultopenduringbusinesshours.See `  id.at31.Third,sincethecauseofthelosshadneverbeenfound,  \  coveragewasalsobarredbytheclauseexcludingcoveragefor"stock   takinglosses,unexplainedshortagesandmysteriousdisappearances." d  Seeid. `   ` Thedistrictcourtdeterminedthattherewasstillan   issueincontroversyastothevalueofthelostjewelryandthe h apportionmentofthisvalueamongthevariouscoplaintiffjewelers d andtheirinsurers.Seeid.Thus,itorderedthepartiestoreturn  forabenchtrialondamages.Seeid.Suchabenchtrialwasnever l heldbecause,aftertheOctober29summaryjudgmentorderwas h issued,thepartiesagreedtostipulatethatthetotalvalueofthe  coplaintiffs'jewelrywas$300,000.Thepartiesalsostipulated p  totheapportionmentofthesedamagesamongthevariousco !l" plaintiffs.OnMay11,2004,thedistrictcourtenteredfinal "$ judgmentincorporatingthedamagesstipulationoftheparties. t$&  _Barquet_Ԁfiledatimelyappeal.  &p!(  $+t&.   III.     A.Standardofreview   x  ` Thepartiesdisagreeovertheproperstandardofreview. $t _Barquet_Ԁcontendsthatthedistrictcourt'sOctober29orderwasa   gardenvarietygrantofsummaryjudgment,andthereforeourreview |  ofwhetherthereareanygenuineissuesofmaterialfactwarranting ( x  trialisdenovo.See,e.g.,_Fenton_v.JohnHancockMut.LifeIns. $  Co.,400F.3d83,87(1stCir.2005).Alloftheotherparties   arguethatthiswasnotastandardgrantofsummaryjudgment,but ,|  insteadthattrialwaswaivedandthatthecrossmotionsforsummary ( judgmentconstituted,ineffect,areferraloftheactiontothe  districtcourtasacasestated.See_Garca_Ԅ_Ayala_v._Lederle_ 0 _Parenterals_,Inc.,212F.3d638,64445(1stCir.2000).Thus,they , contend,thedistrictcourtwaspermittedtomakefactualfindings  andourreviewofthesefindingsisonlyforclearerror,although, 4 ofcourse,westillwouldexercisedenovoreviewofanypurely 0 legalquestions.    ` _Barquet_'spositiononthisissueiscorrect;ourreview 8!" inthiscaseisthestandarddenovoreviewofadistrictcourt's "4$ grantofsummaryjudgment.Itistruethatnopartyrequesteda $& jurytrialand_Barquet_Ԁhasnotcontested,onappeal,thathe <&!( effectivelywaivedhisrighttoajurytrial.Butjurywaiveris '8#* notasufficientconditionforustofindthatthepartiesintended )$, tosubmittheircaseasacasestatedratherthangoingtotrial. @+&. Seeid.Thepartiesmaystillhaveintendedtotreatsummary  judgmentasaseparatephase,andthenproceedtoabenchtrial. \ Nordoesthefactthatcrossmotionsforsummaryjudgmentwerefiled X necessarilymeanthatthepartiesintendedtoofferthedistrict   courtacasestated.SeeUnited_Paperworkers_Ԁ_Int'l_ԀUnionLocal14 `  v._Int'l_ԀPaperCo.,64F.3d28,31n.2(1stCir.1995).  \   ` Thetouchstoneofourinquiryis"theintentionsofthe   partiesandthedistrictcourtjudge,asevidencedbytherecordon d  appeal."_Garca_Ԅ_Ayala_# XFXX XFn\# XFXX XF,212F.3dat644.Ourreadingoftheintent `  ofthedistrictcourtandthepartiesbelowisthattheydidnot   viewthecaseasacasestated.Thedistrictcourt,attheoutset h ofitsOctober29order,laidouttheordinarysummaryjudgment d standardinconsiderabledetail.AstoriaJewelry,291F.Supp.2d  at21.Further,thepartiesjointlyfileda"ProposedPretrial l Order"onSeptember25,2003,betweenthetimetheirrespective h summaryjudgmentmotionswerefiledandthetimethedistrict  court'sOctober29ordergrantingsummaryjudgmentwasissued.This p  55pageproposedorderdealtwitheachparty'switnesses,exhibits, !l" andlegaltheoriestobepresentedattrialinadetailedway.This "$ isanindicationthatthepartiesdidnotbelievetheirsummary t$& judgmentmotionswouldnecessarilydisposeoftheentirecase;they  &p!( believedabenchtrialcouldbenecessary.Wenotefinallythatour '#*  applicationofadenovostandardratherthanmoredeferential x)$, reviewhasnoeffectontheoutcomeofthisappeal.Wewouldaffirm  eitherway. \  B._Barquet_'sLiability:The_Depositum_ԀContract X 1.ApplicableLaw    ` UnderPuertoRicolaw,_depositum_Ԁcontractscanbegoverned `  byeithertheCommercialCodeortheCivilCode.See10P.R.Laws  \  Ann.1621etseq.;31P.R.LawsAnn.4621etseq._Barquet_   arguesthattheCommercialCodegovernsinthiscase;theplaintiffs d  contendinsteadthattheCivilCodeapplies.Thedistrictcourt `  heldthat_Barquet_Ԁhadwaiveditsgeneralargumentaboutthe   applicabilityoftheCommercialCodebyfailingtoraiseitinan h InitialSchedulingConferenceorasubsequentschedulingconference. d SeeAstoriaJewelry,291F.Supp.2dat2324.Wedonottreator  relyuponthedistrictcourt'stheoryofwaiver,butofcoursewe l mayaffirmsummaryjudgmentagainst_Barquet_Ԁonanygroundsupported h bytherecord.# XFXX XFm# XFXX XF   ` A_depositum_Ԁcontractisdeemedcommercial,andtherefore p  governedbytheCommercialCoderatherthantheCivilCode,onlyin !l" situationswherethreeconditionsaremet.First,thedepositor "$ mustbeamerchant;second,theitemsdepositedmustbecommercial t$& goods;andthird,thedepositmust"constituteinitselfa  &p!( commercialtransaction,orbemadebyreasonofcommercial '#* transactions."10P.R.LawsAnn.1621.Toourknowledge,no x)$, PuertoRicocourthasinterpretedthisprovision.Thefirsttwo $+t&. _prongsaremethere.Onthethirdprong,thedepositwasnotin  itselfacommercialtransaction,butBarquetarguesthatitwasmade \ "byreason"ofsuchatransactionbecause,accordingtoWeinberg, X thebagswereleftinanticipationofthenextmorning'smeetingat   theBarquetstore,whereWeinbergwouldattempttoselljewelryto `  Barquet.SinceNataliotestifiedthatnosuchmeetingwaseverset,  \  thisisanoddargumentforBarquettomake.    ` Wearedoubtfulthatthefactsherearesufficienttomeet d  thethirdprong,butevenassumingdubitantethatacommercial `  depositwasformed,theprovisionsoftheCommercialCodeareofno   assistancetoBarquet.Barquetpointstotwoprovisionsofthe h CommercialCodeasaidingitsappeal. d  ` First,Barquetalludesbrieflyto10P.R.LawsAnn.  1302# XFXX XFW# XFXX XF,whichstatesthatforcommercialcontracts,"thetestimonyof l witnessesshallnotinitselfbesufficienttoprovetheexistence h ofacontracttheamountofwhichexceedsthreehundreddollars,  unlesssuchtestimonyconcurswithotherevidence."Although p  Barquet'sgeneralargumentabouttheapplicabilityoftheCommercial !l" Codewasnotanaffirmativedefenseandneednothavebeenpled,by "$ contrastanyrelianceonthisspecificprovision,1302which t$& isinthenatureofastatuteoffraudsisanaffirmativedefense  &p!( underFed.R.Civ.P.8(c).Affirmativedefensesmustbepledor '#* theywillgenerallybedeemedwaivedandexcludedfromthecase. x)$, See,e.g.,HoneyDewAssocs.,Inc.v.M&KFoodCorp.,241F.3d23, $+t&. 26(1stCir.2001).YetBarquetdidnotoriginallypleadthis  provisioninitsanswer,nordiditeverfileamotiontoamendits \ answer.SeeAstoriaJewelry,291F.Supp.2dat23.# XFXX XFѓ# XFXX XFԀThus,any X suggestionbyBarquetthatthiscontractisunenforceableunder   1302becauseunwrittenhasbeenwaived.# XFXX XFʘ# XFXX XFԀ# XFXX XF# XFXX XF `   ` Second,Barquetarguesthatthedistrictcourterredin  \  applyingthestandardofcarefordepositedgoodsfoundintheCivil   Codethe"goodfatherofafamily"standard,see31P.R.Laws d  Ann.3021# XFXX XF# XFXX XFԀinsteadofthestandardofcareunderacommercial `  depositumcontractgovernedbytheCommercialCode.# XFXX XFg# XFXX XFUnderthe   CommercialCode,acommercialdepositaryis"liablefortheinjury h anddamagethearticlesdepositedmaysufferbyreasonofhismalice d ornegligence,andalsoforthosearisingfromthenatureordefects  ofthearticles,ifheshouldnotinthelattercasespersonally l havedoneallthatwaspossibleinordertoavoidorremedythem h ...."10P.R.LawsAnn.1624.Barquet'sargumentassumesit  wouldbebetteroffiftheCommercialCodestandardratherthanthe p  CivilCodestandardapplied.Thisassumptionisincorrect. !l"  ` Barquetobservesthat,unliketheCivilCode,see31P.R. "$ LawsAnn.3192,# XFXX XF)# XFXX XFԀthereisnoexpressprovisionintheCommercial t$& Codeestablishingapresumptionofthedepositary'snegligencefor  &p!( depositedgoodslostordamagedwhileinhispossession.# XFXX XF# XFXX XFԀSucha '#* presumptionisfamiliarfromcommonlawbailment,whereitexists x)$, toforcethebaileetocomeforwardwiththeinformationit_has $+t&. available,sinceit,asholderofthebaileditems,isinabetter  positionthanthebailortodeterminethecauseoftheloss.See, \ e.g.,_Goudy_Ԁ&Stevens,Inc.v.CableMarine,Inc.,924F.2d16,18 X 19(1stCir.1991).# XFXX XFѠ# XFXX XFԀThiscasedoesnotturnonthepresenceor   absenceofthedepositary'spresumptionofnegligence.And, `  althoughitseemsthatnoPuertoRicocourthasinterpreted1624,  \  itisnotobviousthattheCommercialCode'sstandardislowerthan   theCivilCode's"goodfatherofafamily"standard,whichaswe d  explainbelowhasbeeninterpretedbythePuertoRicoSupreme `  Courttoimposeliabilityonlyforordinarynegligence.Indeed,the   lastclauseof1624suggestsahigherstandardofcarefor h commercial_depositum_Ԁcontractsthanforcivil_depositum_Ԁcontracts d incertaincircumstances._Barquet_Ԁoffersnoreasonwhythestandard  wouldbelowerforcommercial_depositum_Ԁcontractsthanforordinary, l civil_depositum_Ԁcontracts.# XFXX XF5# XFXX XFԀ h  ` Since_Barquet_Ԁhaswaivedanyargumentunder1302andit  wouldnotaid_Barquet_ԀforustoapplytheCommercialCoderather p  thantheCivilCode,wewillanalyzetherestofthiscaseunderthe !l" CivilCodeprovisions,whicharebothmorecomprehensiveandbetter "$ glossedbythePuertoRicocourts. t$& 2.Formation  &p!(  ` _Barquet_Ԁchallengesthedistrictcourt'srulingthatitis '#* liabletopaythecoplaintiffjewelers(aswellasthosejewelers' x)$, insurers)forthelostjewelry. $+t&.  ` Thedistrictcourt'srulinghingedonitsholdingthat  underPuertoRicolaw,a_depositum_Ԁcontractwasformedbetween \ _Barquet_ԀandWeinbergand_Reisman_.The_depositum_Ԁcontractisacivil X lawconcept,existinginLouisianaaswellasPuertoRico,thathas   somerelationshipwiththecommonlawconceptofbailment.Thetwo `  concepts,however,arenotidenticalandthereforeonemustbe  \  cautiousinusingnotionsderivedfrombailmenttodeterminethe   natureofthe_depositum_Ԁcontract.SeegenerallyMichaelH.Rubin, d  Comment,BailmentandDepositinLouisiana,35La.L.Rev.825 `  (1975).    ` The_depositum_ԀcontractunderthePuertoRicoCivilCode, h whichisderivedfromrelevantprovisionsoftheSpanishCivilCode, d isinessenceacontractwherebyoneperson(thedepositor)hands  apieceofpersonalpropertytoanotherperson(thedepositary)for l thesolepurposeofhavingthedepositarykeep,conserve,andreturn h theproperty.See,e.g.,Riverav.SanJuanRacing_Ass'n_,90_P.R.R._  405,411(1964)("[_I]n_Ԁ[_depositum_Ԁcontracts]theobligationof p  custodyappearsautonomousinnature,itistheessenceofthe !l" contractitself.");4Jose_Castan_Ԁ_Tobeas_,SpanishCivil,Commonand "$ LocalLaw681(12thed.1985)("[_T]he_Ԁessentialcharacteristicof t$& thedepositisthatofthehandingoverofthething,withthesole  &p!( andexclusiveendofitskeeping,conservationandreturn...."). '#* Thusthedepositarycannotusethepropertywithoutthedepositor's x)$, permission,see31P.R.LawsAnn.4662,andsuchpermission $+t&. _transformsthecontractintoaloanratherthanadeposit,seeid.  4663.Further,thedepositarymustreturnthepropertytothe \ depositorwhenthelatterdemandsitsreturn.Seeid.4670. X  ` Adepositumcontractcanariseinvariouscontexts.A   businesscanactasdepositarywhenitagreestosafeguardanitem `  whileperformingsomeserviceonitforthedepositor.See,e.g.,  \  M.A.CaribbeanCorp.v.CaribbeanRustproofers,Inc.,115P.R.   Offic.Trans.896,900(1984)(depositumcontractformedwhentow d  truckdeliveredforrustproofing);Am.Sec.Ins.Co.v.Ocasio,102 `  P.R.Offic.Trans.207(1974)(samewithrespecttocardelivered   togarageforpaintwork).Further,acreditorcanactas h depositarywhenitattachesadebtor'spropertyinordertosecure d theeffectivenessofajudgment.SeeRodrguezSotov.Adorno,104  P.R.Offic.Trans.901(1976).Neitherofthese,ofcourse,isthe l situationhere. h  ` Butthecontexthere,whereasalesmanasksastorefor  permissiontoleavehiswaresinitsvault,andthestoregrants p  suchpermissionoutoffriendshiporkindnesswithoutdemandingany !l" compensationfortheservice,canalsocreateadepositumcontract. "$ TheCivilCodeofPuertoRicoisclearthatconsiderationor t$& compensationtothedepositaryisnotnecessarytoformadepositum  &p!( contractinfact,thedepositumcontractispresumedgratuitous '#* absentsomeagreementtothecontrary.See31P.R.LawsAnn. x)$, 4641.Similarly,itisnotnecessarythatthedepositoractoutof $+t&. somebusinessmotive;adepositumcontractisformedifthe  depositary'smotiveinacceptingthedepositor'spropertyissimple \ courtesy.See22:1ManuelAlbaladejo,PrivateLawReview:Comments X totheCivilCodeandLocalCompilations19899(1980)(explaining   asparadigmaticthecasewhereapasserby,withoutaskingforany `  compensation,agreedtocareforanotherperson'soxeninapublic  \  marketforafewmoments). 󀀀    ` Whendeterminingwhetherthepartieshaveformeda d  depositumcontract,thePuertoRicoSupremeCourthas,asthe `  districtcourtnoted,focusedon"whetherornotthedeliveryofthe   thinghasbeenaccomplished,whetherthe[depositary]hasreceived h theeffectivepossessionandcontrolofthethingtothepointof d excludingthepossessionoftheownerhimself...."Nicolev.  PonceYachtClub,96P.R.R.286,290(1968);seealsoRivera,90 l P.R.R.at414417.Here,deliverywasaccomplishedwhenWeinberg h placedthejewelrybagswithBarquet'spermissioninthe  Barquetvault.Barquetattainedeffectiveandexclusivepossession p  andcontrolofthejewelrybagsatthattimebecausetheywere !l" placedinsideBarquet'sownvault,inabackroomofitsstore. "$ Ѐ ` Barquethangsitsargumentthatnodepositumcontractwas t$& formedchieflyonanallegedlackofconsent.Whileitadmitsthat  &p!( itconsentedtoallowingWeinbergtoplacethejewelrybagsinits '#* vault,itarguesthatthereisnoevidencethatitconsentedto x)$, safeguardthejewelrybagswhiletheywereleftinthevault.It $+t&. istruethatNatalioagreedthatWeinbergcouldleavethejewelry  bagsintheBarquetvaultbutthattherewasnofurtherdiscussion \ ofcontractualterms.Thelackofsuchdiscussionis,however, X irrelevant.    ` ThePuertoRicoSupremeCourthasnotdiscussedconsent `  asanelementinanyofitscasesondepositumcontracts;instead,  \  asalreadynoted,inRiveraandPonceYachtClubitfocusedonthe   depositor'sdeliveryofthedepositeditemsandthedepositary's d  subsequenteffectiveandexclusivepossessionandcontrolofthose `  items.Theproperreadingofthiscaselaw,whichisinaccordwith   thecommentators,isthatthedepositary'sconsenttobeboundby h thestatutorytermsofthedepositumcontractincludingthe d statutoryrequirementthatadepositarysafeguardthedeposited  goodscanbeinferredfromthedepositor'sdeliveryofanitem l tothedepositary,thedepositary'sknowingacceptanceofthatitem, h andthedepository'seffectiveandexclusivepossessionandcontrol  overtheitem.SeeAlbaladejo,supra,at191n.2.Louisianalaw p  onthedepositumcontractallowsasimilarinferenceofconsent. !l" See,e.g.,UnitedStatesFid.&Guar.Co.v.DixieParkingServ., "$ Inc.,262So.2d365,367(La.1972).BarquetarguesthatRivera t$& andPonceYachtClubareinapposite,becausetheyinvolved  &p!( situationsinwhichthepartiesclearlyhadformedsomekindof '#* contractandtheonlyquestionwasthetypeofthatcontract.But x)$, thisisadistinctionwithoutadifference:eventhoughthesecases $+t&. dealtwithacknowledgedcontracts,thePuertoRicoSupremeCourtwas  stillrequiredtoinferconsentbythedepositarytobeboundbythe \ statutorytermsofadepositumcontract. X  ` Barquet'sconsenttoformadepositumcontract,as   governedbythePuertoRicostatutes,wasproperlyinferredbythe `  districtcourtfromtheparties'silencewhenWeinbergdeliveredthe  \  jewelrytoBarquet'svault,Barquetagreedtoaccepttheitems,and   theitemswereactuallyplacedinBarquet'svault.Barquetdidnot d  makeanyexpressstatementthatitrefusedtobeboundbythe `  obligationsofadepositary.    ` Barquetarguesthattheparties'intentwasmore h consistentwithadesiretoformacivillawlegalarrangementknown d asa"depositintolerance,"whereBarquetwouldmerelyallow  WeinbergandReismantoleavetheirjewelryinitsstorebutwould l takenoresponsibilityforthesafekeepingofthisjewelry,than h withaclassicdepositumcontractwithitsattendantobligations.  The"depositintolerance"hasneverbeenrecognizedbythePuerto p  Ricocourts,andthecommentatorthatBarquetitselfrelieson !l" describestheconceptasa"doubtfulsupposition[]."See "$ Albaladejo,supra,at199.TheschemeestablishedinPuertoRico t$& requiresustoinferconsenttoformafullfledgeddepositum  &p!( contract,withitsstatutoryobligations,wheneveranitemhasbeen '#* deliveredbythedepositorandisintheeffectiveandexclusive x)$, possessionandcontrolofthedepositary.Atleastabsent_some $+t&. expressstatementbytheparties,wearenotpermittedtoinfer  consenttosomelessersetofobligations. \  ` _Barquet_Ԁfinallyarguesthatweshouldnotinfera X _depositum_Ԁcontractherebecauseoftheimbalancebetween_Barquet_'s   nonexistentgainfromthe_depositum_Ԁcontractanditssubstantial `  liabilityoncethejewelrywasstolen.ButthePuertoRicoCivil  \  Codeseemstocontemplatejustsuchanimbalancewhenitallowsfor   ЄandindeedpresumesthatCivilCode_depositum_Ԁcontractsare d  gratuitous._& #  4      _Ԁ `   ` Weholdthatthepartiesenteredintoa_depositum_    contract,constitutedwhenthejewelrywasplacedin_Barquet_'s h vault._ #  5      _ԀWewillproceedtoexamine_Barquet_'sstandardofcareunder  thatcontract. \  3.StandardofCare X  ` Thedepositarymust,undera_depositum_Ԁcontractgoverned   bythePuertoRicoCivilCode,safeguarddepositeditemswiththe `  careofa"goodfatherofafamily."See31P.R.LawsAnn.3021,  \  4661;_Ocasio_,102P.R._Offic_.Trans.at209.The"goodfather"   standardestablishedinsection3021(whichisentitled"What d  constitutesfaultornegligence")isadefaultstandardwhenthe `  partieshavenotestablishedsomeotherstandard,anditisnot   exclusiveto_depositum_Ԁcontracts,butisappliedmorebroadlyto h certainotherareasofthelaw. d  ` ThePuertoRicoSupremeCourthasinterpretedthestandard  inawaythathasmadeitquitesimilartoordinarynegligence.The l questioniswhetherthedepositorexercised"theproperdiligence, h whichgenerallyshouldbethatwhich'anaverageornormaltypeof  diligentperson'wouldhaveexerted."_Ocasio_,102P.R._Offic_.  Trans.at212;seealsoRodrguezSoto,104P.R._Offic_.Trans.at \ 909.Thus,ordinarymeasuresmustbetaken,butextraordinaryor X unusualstepsneednot.See,e.g.,_Ocasio_,102P.R._Offic_.Trans.   at21213("goodfatherofafamily"standardmetwheredepositary `  ofcarleftforpaintworksurroundedpremiseswithwirefence,  \  barbedwire,andlockedgates,despitedepositary'sfailuretotake   "additionalprecautions,"suchasmaintainingawatchmanor d  watchdogs). `   ` _Barquet_Ԁproperlypointsoutthattheissueofnegligence   isgenerallylefttothejury,evenwheretherearenoundisputed h materialfacts,atleastinatortcontext.See_Joyal_v.Hasbro, d Inc.,380F.3d14,21n.3(1stCir.2004).Butthejudgecan  properlydecidetheissueonsummaryjudgmentifthematerialfacts l areundisputedandnoreasonablejurycoulddecideinfavorofthe h nonmovingparty.Seeid.;Commonwealth_Utils_.Corp.v._Goltens_  Trading&_Eng'g_Ԁ_PTE_ԀLtd.,313F.3d541,546(9thCir.2002). p   ` Theundisputedevidencedemonstratedthatdefendantknew !l" thatitsvaultwasalwaysopenduringtheday;itadmittedaswell "$ thatcustomerscouldeasilyaccesstheroominthestorewherethe t$& vaultwaslocatedandweresometimesleftaloneinthatroom.The  &p!( videocamerasdidnotrecord,therewerenohiredsecurity '#* personnel,and_Barquet_'semployeesfeltnoresponsibilitytocare x)$, forthejewelrybags.Leavingveryexpensivebagsofjewelryin $+t&. suchastaterepresentedafailuretotakeevenbasicprecautions  noreasonablejurycouldfindthat_Barquet_Ԁexercisedthecarewhich \ "anaverageornormaltypeofdiligentperson"wouldhaveexercised. X _Barquet_Ԁmakesnoargumentaboutactionittookthatwouldraisea   juryquestionastowhetheritmetitsstandardofcare.Thegrant `  ofsummaryjudgmentagainst_Barquet_Ԁonthe_depositum_Ԁcontractclaim  \  isaffirmed._! #  6      _Ԁ   C._Barquet_'sThirdPartyClaimsAgainstItsInsurers d  1.DutytoDefendClaimAgainst_Integrand_ `   ` _Barquet_Ԁcontendsthatthedistrictcourterredingranting   _Integrand_Ԁsummaryjudgmenton_Barquet_'sclaimthat_Integrand_, h _Barquet_'scommercialliabilityinsurer,hadadutytodefend_Barquet_ d againstthelawsuitbroughtbythecoplaintiffjewelers(Astoria,  Shah,andEclipse)andtheirinsurers._Barquet_Ԁhasnotappealedthe l districtcourt'sfindingthat_Integrand_Ԁneednotpaytoindemnify h _Barquetforitsliabilityinthisunderlyingaction;Barquet  commendablyadmits,infact,thatthedepositumcontracttheorythat \ thedistrictcourtusedtograntrelieffallsunderapolicy X exemptionbecauseitpresupposesthatthelostjewelrywasunder   Barquet's"care,custody,orcontrol"whentaken. `   ` UnderPuertoRicolaw,thedutytodefendismeasuredby  \  theallegationsinaplaintiff'scomplaintifanyofthese   allegations,readliberally,statefactsthatwouldbecoveredby d  aliabilitypolicyifproventrue,thentheinsurermustprovidea `  defensefortheinsureddefendant.See,e.g.,MartinezPerezv.   UniversidadCentraldeBayamon,Inc.,143P.R.Dec.554,562(1997) h (OfficialTranslation) ;PagnCaraballov.SilvaDelgado,122P.R. d Offic.Trans.98,10203(1988).    ` Barquetarguesthat,asidefromthedepositumcontract l claim,thecomplaintofthecoplaintiffjewelersandtheirinsurers h alsoallegesaseparateclaimoftortlawnegligence.Thecomplaint  cannotreasonablybereadthisway.Thecoplaintiffswereonly p  seekingreliefonadepositumcontracttheory.Thereferencesto !l" "negligence"arelocatedwithinthecomplaint'sdiscussionofthis "$ contractcount,andareintendedmerelyasreferencestothe t$& standardofcareunderadepositumcontract. Barquetbrieflyargues  &p!( thatwecangobeyondtheallegationsinthecomplainttolookat '#* extrinsicevidenceindeterminingwhetherIntegrandhadadutyto x)$, defend.PuertoRicohasneveradoptedsuchanapproach.See,e.g., $+t&. MartinezPerez,143P.R.Dec.at562# XFXX XF# XFXX XFԀ("[I]ftheallegationsclearly  excludethedamagesclaimedfromthecoverageofthepolicy,the \ dutytodefendcannotbeimposedupontheinsurancecompany.")The X districtcourt'srulingthatIntegrandhadnodutytodefendwas   correct. `  2.IndemnificationClaimAgainstEU  \  ЀBarquetarguesthat,underthetermsofitsjeweler'sblock   policy,EUmustindemnifyBarquetforitsliabilitytotheco d  plaintiffjewelersandtheirinsurers,andthedistrictcourterred `  inholdingtothecontrary.Barquetisincorrect.PuertoRicolaw   instructsustoreadinsurancecontractsinaccordancewiththeir h plainmeaning,asawhole,andinharmonywiththegeneralpurposes d ofthepolicy;moreover,weareinstructedtoreadexclusionary  clausesstrictlyandonlyenforcethemwheretheirapplicabilityto l thecaseathandisclear.See,e.g.,QuionesL;pezv.Manzano h Pozas,141P.R.Dec.139(1996)(OfficialTranslation) ;Pagn  Caraballo,122P.R.Offic.Trans.at101.  p   ` Coverageexists,accordingtothepolicyschedule,only !l" forlossesordamagetoBarquet's"Stock(includingotherpeople's "$ goods)."Weneednotdeterminewhetherthejewelryatissuehere t$& comeswithinthemeaningofthisclause.  &p!(  ` Evenassumingarguendothatitdoes,coverageisbarred '#* bythe"LockedShowcaseWarranty."Thisprovisionmakesita x)$, conditionprecedenttoliability,"inrespecttolossbyTheft,_that $+t&. whilstthepremisesareopenforbusiness,allshowcases,safesand  cupboardscontainingStock,andtherearofalldisplaywindowsbe \ lockedandkeysremovedtherefrom."Itisundisputedthatthevault X wherethelostjewelrybagswereplacedwasalwaysopenandunlocked   duringbusinesshours._Barquet_Ԁarguesthatthereisnoevidencethe `  jewelrywaslostbytheft,butunderthecircumstancesnoreasonable  \  jurycouldcometoanyotherconclusion.Moreover,_Barquet_Ԁcontends   thatthejewelrylostisnotcoveredbythe"LockedShowcase d  Warranty"becauseitisnot"stock."Thisargumentleadsnowhere `  because,underthepolicyschedule,onlygoodsconsidered"stock"   arecoveredbythispolicyatall.Thereferenceto"otherpeople's h goods"modifies"stock"anddoesnotstandonitsown:only"other d people'sgoods"thatconstitute"stock"arecovered.   ` Weexpresslydecline,asunnecessary,torelyonthelast l groundstatedbythedistrictcourt,theEUpolicyexemptionfor h "stocktakinglosses,unexplainedshortagesandmysterious  disappearances." p    IV.  !l"  ` Thedistrictcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentinfavor "4$ ofcoplaintiffsAstoria,Shah,andEclipse(aswellastheir $& insurers)onthe_depositum_Ԁcontractclaimis affirmed .Thedistrict <&!( court'sgrantsofsummaryjudgmentinfavorof_Integrand_ԀandEUon (T#* _Barquet_'sthirdpartyinsuranceclaimsarealso affirmed. # XFXX XF,#