WPC+ =@=[>[rsjcb,G(Cn>bŨ ROАb02hxK椠ݢ9P,@]@ʁ_v^"w@C>VYM=uUڬ>u{I3YOW8Fz#DIcWY;}c鋅 BLώ֢puҼ?y5A446Qhf8˲H%ɣN5~3r^}) z̽=sCY(k&J P]&rsI0^2%f4PSFm]A>R68SmXC_.[l9"ͣ6F# @ ;DЬҽ<^;q1mx_-1wEe@΍Hvʊ`I˃EB^,a%o&ׂ4i|'k1+1z39bK"\I+Amh^'ƺgJ?C{0۱{S(#0 % 0(UF/ 0u9;nTt N ^ w 4   m N E f a >0 0Dn b   UFzUN BHP LaserJet 2100 PCL6,,,,,,,,0%X ($.Courier New Regular(v(2uC$ !    =~ XXdd=    0   / uC$  =zXXdd=    2    _ԀThepartiesagreethatSectionI(B)istheonlypolicy  provisionthatmightentitleMMICtoreimbursement.<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@zH;Z f#;6Xyfiles3|xUTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT(#$  0  - - uC$  =zXXdd=    *    _OftheSeventhCircuit,sittingbydesignation.    uC$  =zXXdd=    3    __ԀTobesure,theomittedportionofthedefinition mentions  "theCompany,"butthisrefersonlytocoverageunderSectionI_(C_)  ofthepolicy.Thatsection,inturn,coversonlylossesresulting j fromsecuritiesclaims"madeagainsttheCompany...fora @ CompanyWrongfulAct."Thepolicy'sdefinitionof"claim"makes f thisdistinctionpellucid:"'Claim'means...aformalcivil, < criminal,administrativeregulatoryproceedingorformal   investigationofanInsuredPersonortheCompany(butwithrespect   totheCompanyonlyforaCompanyWrongfulAct)...."<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular d !  _TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * !   &X%XX%X&)X&X%UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#&X%X&)##%XzXX&X%#  %X%Xz&P%FortheFirstCircuit   #%&P##%XzX%p#A') ` dE< ` A   No.082525 K  @  MEDICALMUTUALINSURANCECOMPANYOFMAINE,  G  @ Plaintiff,Appellant,   @tt)v. O  @l l INDIANHARBORINSURANCECOMPANY, K  @<< Defendant,Appellee.  A') ` dE<R` A S   @@*APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMAINE 4 [Hon.D.Brock_Hornby_,U.S.DistrictJudge]  @@*A') ` dE<` A 8 @@'Before  @@((Howard,Ripple, #  *      ׀_and_ԀSelya,CircuitJudges. y! A') ` dE<$!` A %!u#     JeffreyT.Edwards,withwhom_Preti_,_Flaherty_,_Beliveau_Ԁ&  "Z% _Pachios_,_LLP_wasonbrief,forappellant. "0&   LeslieS._Ahari_,withwhom_Troutman_ԀSanders_LLP_,LouisK. #' Thomas,andPierceAtwood_LLP_wereonbrief,forappellee. $( *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  '^"+'^"  SIr'", @40093@SOctober8,2009 H(#.  RHC)n$/" @40093 @ R(r'"0  (  $*t%0?   *,X` XX*8zXXdd8 ` SELYA,CircuitJudge. Thisappealpresentsthequestion  ofwhetheracorporationcanrecoverunderadirectorandofficer x (D&O)liabilityinsurancepolicyforlossesstemmingfromjudicial $t andadministrativecomplaintsfiledagainstthecompanybutwhich   allegedwrongfulconductonthepartofitsdirectorsandofficers. |  Intypicalfashion,thepolicylanguagelimitscoveragetolosses ( x  resultingfromclaimsmadeagainstthedirectorsandofficers $  themselves.    ` D&Opoliciesexisttofundindemnificationcovenantsthat ,|  protectcorporatedirectorsandofficersfrompersonalliability, ( nottoprotectthecorporationbywhichtheyareemployed.The  positionadvancedbythecompanyinthiscase"extendingcoverage 0 tosituationsinwhichthedirectorsandofficersarenot , themselvestheactualtargetsoftheclaimsmade" wouldif  acceptedtransmogrifyD&Opoliciesintocomprehensivecorporate 4 liabilitypolicies.Becausesuchatransmogrificationiscontrary 0 toboththeletterandthespiritoftheD&Opolicyatissuehere,   weaffirmthedistrictcourt'sentryofsummaryjudgmentinfavor 8!" oftheinsurer. "4$  I.BACKGROUND $&  ` ThiscasehaditsgenesisinadisputebetweenMedical X&!( MutualInsuranceCompanyofMaine(_MMIC_)andPatrickA._Dowling_, (T#*  whosufferedastrokeinAprilof2005._MMIC_Ԁdidnotwaitvery )%, longbeforeousting_Dowling_Ԁfromhispositionasitschief  executiveofficer. \   ` _Dowling_Ԁretainedcounselwho,inOctoberof2005,wrote X ademandlettertoMMIC,seekingcompensationforalleged   disabilitydiscrimination.Whenthedemandletterfailedto `  producethedesiredresponse,_Dowling_Ԁfiledanadministrative  \  complaintagainstMMICwiththeMaineHumanRightsCommissionand   thefederalEqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission.Thestatement d  ofchargenamedMMICasthelonerespondent,butalleged `  discriminatoryconductonthepartofMMIC,itsdirectors,andits   officers. h  ` Aftertheagenciesissuedrighttosueletters,_Dowling_ d filedacivilcomplaintagainstMMICintheUnitedStatesDistrict  CourtfortheDistrictofMaine._Dowling_Ԁdidnotnameanydirector l orofficerasadefendant,butthecomplaintcontainedallegations h ofwrongfulconductattributabletoMMIC'sdirectorsandofficers.  ThecomplaintsoughtdamagesagainstMMICand,amongaseriesof p  otherprayersforrelief,alsorequestedthatthecourt"[_e]njoin_ !l" MMIC,itsagents,employees,andsuccessors,fromcontinuingto "$ violate"_Dowling_'srights. t$&  ` Thenamedpartieseventuallysettledthecase.MMICpaid  &p!( $325,000outofitsowncoffersinexchangefor_Dowling_'sexecution '#* ofareleaseofallclaimsagainstMMICandits"officers,agents, x)$, employees,attorneys,[and]membersoftheBoardofDirectors." $+t&.  ` _MMIC_Ԁsubsequentlysoughtreimbursement fromIndianHarbor  InsuranceCompany* !,whichhadissued aD&Opolicy(styledinthis \ instanceasamanagementliabilitypolicy)to_MMIC_.Thatpolicy $t providedreimbursementforanyloss(es)to_MMIC_Ԁarisingoutof   claimsmadeagainstitsdirectorsandofficers.IndianHarbor |  refusedtopaythepiper,concludingthat_Dowling_'sclaimshadbeen ( x  madeonlyagainstthecompany(_MMIC_)andnotagainstitsdirectors $  orofficers.    ` Undauntedbythisrebuff,MMICfiledtheinstantaction ,|  againstIndianHarborinthedistrictcourt,seekingtocompel ( paymentundertheIndianHarborpolicy.Oncrossmotionsfor  summaryjudgment,thecourtconcludedthatthepolicydidnotcover 0 lossesresultingfromeitherofthecomplaints(administrativeor , judicial)filedby_Dowling_ԀagainstMMIC.Consequently,itgranted  summaryjudgmentinIndianHarbor'sfavor.Thistimelyappeal 4 ensued. 0  II.ANALYSIS    ` Weoperateunderafamiliarlegalframework.Thisisa T!" diversitycase,28U.S.C.1332(c),inwhichMainelawsupplies #P$ thesubstantiverulesofdecision.SeeErieR.R.Co.v._Tompkins_, $& 304U.S.64,78(1938).Thedistrictcourt,applyingMainelaw, X&!( madeitsdispositiverulingatthesummaryjudgmentstage,andthat (T#* rulingengendersdenovoreview.HoultonCitizens'Coal.v.Town )%, ofHoulton,175F.3d178,184(1stCir.1999). \+&.  ` UnderMainelaw,thegeneralruleisthatambiguous  languageinaninsurancepolicymustbeconstruedagainstthe \ insurer._Seaco_ԀIns.Co.v.DavisIrish,300F.3d84,86(1stCir. X 2002); UnionMut.FireIns.Co.v._Comm'l_ԀUnionIns.Co.,521A.2d   308,310(Me.1987).Theveryarticulationofthisruleindicates `  itslimitations:unambiguouslanguagedoesnotfallwithintherule  \  but,rather,mustbegivenitsplainandordinarymeaning.   AlternativeEnergy,Inc.v.St.PaulFire&MarineIns.Co.,267 d  F.3d30,35(1stCir.2001);_Lidstone_v.Green,469A.2d843,846 `  (Me.1983). Whenatermisexpresslydefinedwithinthefour   cornersofaninsurancepolicy,aninquiringcourtmustdeferto h thatdefinitionandtherebygiveeffecttotheintentofthe d parties.SeeJohnHancockLifeIns.Co.v.AbbottLabs.,478F.3d  1,78(1stCir.2006);seealsoInreBlindstoGoSharePurchase l _Litig_.,443F.3d1,7(1stCir.2006)("Wherethepartiestoa h contracttakepainstodefineakeytermspecifically,their  dealingsunderthecontractaregovernedbythatdefinition."). p   ` Inthecaseathand,theparties'disputecenterson !l" SectionI(B)ofthepolicy'sinsuringagreements. #  2      ׀SectionI(B) "$ provides: t$& 8 ` TheInsurershallpayonbehalfoftheCompany  &p!( LosswhichtheCompanyisrequiredor &F") permittedtopayasindemnificationtoanyof '#* theInsuredPersonsresultingfromaClaim (#+ firstmadeagainsttheInsuredPersonsduring  thePolicyPeriodor,ifapplicable,the  OptionalExtensionPeriod,foraWrongfulAct \ orEmploymentPracticesWrongfulAct.2` x` x Thepolicydefines"InsuredPerson"as"anypast,presentorfuture . directororofficer,ormemberoftheBoardofManagers,ofthe   Company."Thepolicyfurtherdefinestheword"claim"toinclude 6   anyoneofthefollowingfouriterations:  2  8 ` (1)awrittendemandformonetaryornon   monetaryrelief;d ` x` x 8 ` (2)anycivilproceedinginacourtoflawor `  equity,orarbitration;6` x` x 8 ` (3)anycriminalproceedingwhichiscommenced  bythereturnofanindictment;andh` x` x 8 ` (4)aformalcivil,criminal,administrative d regulatoryproceedingorformalinvestigation : ofanInsuredPersonortheCompany(butwith  respecttotheCompanyonlyforaCompany  WrongfulAct)whichiscommencedbythefiling l orissuanceofanoticeofcharges,formal B investigativeorderorsimilardocument h identifyinginwritingsuchInsuredPersonor > theCompanyasapersonorentityagainstwhom  aproceedingasdescribedin(C)(2)[civil  proceeding]or(3)[criminalproceeding]above p  maybecommenced,includinganyproceeding F ! beforetheEqualEmploymentOpportunity !l" Commissionoranysimilarfederal,stateor !B# localgovernmentalbody...."$` x` x Ѐ ` Webringthesepolicyprovisionstobearhere.To t$& establishcoverageunderSectionI(B),_MMIC_Ԁhadtoshowboththat  &p!( _Dowling_Ԁmadea"claim"asdefinedinthepolicyandthat_Dowling_'s '#* claimwasmadeagainst_MMIC_'sdirectorsandofficers.Inthe x)$, districtcourt,MMICpointedtotwoseparate"claims"thatit $+t&. deemedsufficienttosatisfythistwoparttest:theadministrative  complaintandthejudicialcomplaint.Initsreplybriefinthis \ court,_MMIC_Ԁforthefirsttimeenlargedthislist,contendingthat X ademandletterfrom_Dowling_'scounselto_MMIC_,datedOctober13,   2005,constitutesathirdsuch"claim." `   ` Wetakethenewestcontentionfirst,andrejectitoutof  \  hand.Foronething,MMICdidnotadvancethiscontentioninthe   districtcourtand,therefore,itisprocedurallydefaulted.See d  UnitedStatesv._Slade_,980F.2d27,30(1stCir.1992)("Itisa `  bedrockrulethatwhenapartyhasnotpresentedanargumenttothe   districtcourt,shemaynotunveilitinthecourtofappeals."). h Foranotherthing,MMICwaivedthecontentionbyfailingtoallude d toitinitsopeningbriefinthiscourt.See_DeCaro_v.Hasbro,  Inc.,___F.3d___,___(1stCir.2009)[2009WL2767296,at*7] l ("Itiscommongroundthatcontentionsnotadvancedinan h appellant'sopeningbriefaredeemedwaived.");_Sandstrom_v.  _ChemLawn_ԀCorp.,904F.2d83,86(1stCir.1990)(similar). p   ` Thisleavestheadministrativecomplaintandthejudicial !l" complaint.Weaddresstheminchronologicalorder,beginningwith "$ theadministrativecomplaint. t$&  ` Theadministrativecomplaintfailstosatisfythe  &p!( policy'sdefinitionofa"claim."Inorderforanadministrative '#* complainttoconstituteaclaimunderthatdefinition,thefiling x)$, must"_identif[y_]inwriting[an]InsuredPerson...asaperson $+t&. ..._against_Ԁwhomaproceeding...maybecommenced."_ #  3      _Ԁ  _Dowling_'snoticeofchargenamesMMICasthesolerespondentand \ doesnotidentifyanyparticulardirectorsorofficers.The X accompanyingstatementofchargemakesafewcategoricalreferences   toMMIC'sagents,representatives,andboardmembers,butitdoes `  not nameany specificdirectororofficer.Readingthepolicyas  \  itiswritten,theadministrativecomplaintsimplydoesnot $  comprisea"claim"forpurposesofcoverageunderSectionI(B).    ` Weturnnextto_Dowling_'sjudicialcomplaint.That ,|  pleading satisfiesthedefinitionof"claim"becauseitmarksthe ( commencementofa"civilproceedinginacourtoflaw."Thelarger  questioniswhethertheclaimisone"madeagainst"aninsured 0 person. ,  ` Itcannotbegainsaidthatthedirectorsandofficers  composedtheentirerosterof"InsuredPersons"forpurposesofthe 4 coverageinquestion.MMICitselfisnotincluded.Itisequally 0 clearthat_Dowling_ԀbroughthisactiononlyagainstMMIC.Buteven   thoughthejudicialcomplaintnamedMMICasthesoledefendant, 8!" MMICnotesthatthecomplaintallegedaseriesofwrongfulactson "4$ thepartofitsdirectorsandofficers.Thus,_MMIC_Ԁsays,the  complaintconstitutesa"claim...madeagainsttheInsured \ Persons,"asrequiredbythepolicy. X  ` Thiscounterintuitivepropositiondependsentirelyon   thepremisethatthewords"madeagainst"areambiguousand, `  therefore,aresubjecttoabroadconstructioninfavorof  \  coverage.Werejectthispremise.    ` Themerefactthatapartysaysthatitunderstandswords d  inacontractofinsurancedifferentlythantheinsurerunderstands `  thosewordsdoesnotmakethewordsambiguous.Greenlyv.Mariner   _Mgmt_.Group,Inc.,192F.3d22,26(1stCir.1999)("[_A]n_Ԁinsurance h policyisnotconsideredambiguousmerelybecauseadisputearises d overthemeaningofaparticularprovision.").Bythesametoken,  themerefactthataphrasesuchas"madeagainst"isnot l specificallydefinedinthepolicydoesnotmeanthatthephraseis h ambiguous.Aslongaslanguageinaninsurancepolicy,readin  context,hasaplainandgenerallyacceptedmeaning,thatlanguage p  isfreefromambiguity.SeeAm.Employers'Ins.Co.v._DeLorme_ !l" _Publ'g_ԀCo.,39F.Supp.2d64,82(D.Me.1999) .Relatedly,"[a] "$ contractneednotnegateeverypossibleconstructionofitsterms t$& inordertobeunambiguous."AlternativeEnergy,267F.3dat35.  &p!(  ` Theseprinciplesarecontrollinghere.Bothplain '#* meaningandcommonusagerequirethat,inorderforajudicial x)$, complainttobe"madeagainst"aperson,thatcomplaintmustbe $+t&. filedincourtandmustidentifythepersonasadefendantinthe  action.See_Gargano_v.Liberty_Int'l_ԀUnderwriters,Inc.,572F.3d \ 45,49(1stCir.2009)(findingthataclaimwas"made"when X plaintifffiledsuit);seealsoFed.R.Civ.P.3("Acivilaction   iscommencedbyfilingacomplaintwiththecourt.");cf.Fed.R. `  Civ.P.4(providingthatasummonsmustnametheparties,be  \  directedtothedefendant,andbeserveduponthedefendantafter   thecomplaintisfiled).Becausethisistheonlyreasonable d  interpretationof"madeagainst"inthecontextofthepolicyasa `  whole,thatphraseisnotambiguous.SeeAlternativeEnergy,267   F.3dat34(holdingthatacontractisambiguousonlywhenitis h "reasonablysusceptibleofdifferentinterpretations");  _Lidstone_, d 469A.2dat846(similar). ,  ` MMIC'srejoinderisthatthefactualbasisforthe  judicialcomplaintconsistslargelyofallegationsofmisconducton 4 thepartofitsdirectorsandofficers.Thatmaybetrue,butit 0 doesnottake_MMIC_Ԁveryfar.    ` Theinsurancepolicyatissuehereisnotimplicated 8!" because,nomatterwhatconductthecomplaintdescribes,itisnot "4$ aclaim"madeagainst"anyofthedirectorsorofficers.That $& contentionisthelinchpinofcoverage.SeeBankofCarbondalev. <&!( _Kan_.BankersSuretyCo.,755N.E.2d543,544,547(Ill.App.Ct. '8#* 2001)(findingnocoverageunderD&Opolicywherecounterclaim )$, namedonlythecompanyeventhoughitallegedwrongfulconducton @+&. thepartofdirectorsandofficers);851034thAve.Apart.Corp.  v.NationwideMut.Ins.Co.,725N.Y.S.2d98,99(N.Y.App.Div. \ 2001)(holdingthatcomplaintallegingwrongfulconducton X directors'partwasnotaclaimmadeagainstdirectorsandofficers   "sincenodirectorsorofficerswerenamedasdefendantsinthe `  underlyingaction");seealso17EricMillsHolmes,Holmes'  \  _Appleman_ԀonInsurance120.1(2ded.2001) (remarkingthatbecause   D&Opolices"donotprovidecoveragetotheemployerforits d  liabilities,adiscriminationcomplaintthatnamesonlythe `  employer...usuallywillnottriggercoverageunderaD&O   policy").Thatlinchpinismissinghere. h  ` Ifmorewereneeded"andwedoubtthatitis"the d policyitselfvividlyillustrateswhyfreestandingallegationsof  wrongfulconductbyaninsuredcorporation's directorsandofficers l cannotbetheequivalentofaclaimmadeagainstthosedirectors h andofficers.SectionI(B)ofthepolicyentitlesMMICtocoverage  forlosses"resultingfromaClaim...madeagainsttheInsured p  Persons...foraWrongfulAct."Eachofthecapitalizedterms !l" isdefinedinthepolicy.Thewords"WrongfulAct"aredefinedto "$ mean"anyactualorallegedact,error,omission,misstatement, t$& misleadingstatement,neglect,orbreachofdutybyanyInsured  &p!( Person."Forthecompanytoachievecoverageunderthislanguage, '#* theremonstrantnotonlywouldhavetoallegewrongfulactsonthe x)$, partofdirectorsorofficers,butalsowouldhavetobringaclaim $+t&. againstthem.Thesearecomplementaryrequirements,and  allegationsofwrongfulconduct,withoutmore,donotsatisfythem \ both.See_MGIC_Ԁ_Indem_.Corp.v.HomeState_Sav_._Ass'n_,797F.2d X 285,288(6thCir.1986)(explainingthat"aclaimthatawrongful   acthasoccurredisnotthesamethingasaclaimforpaymenton `  accountofawrongfulact").  \   ` Inanendeavortosnatchvictoryfromthejawsofdefeat,   MMICpointsoutthat"claim"isdisjunctivelydefinedinthepolicy d  as"awrittendemandformonetaryornonmonetaryrelief."With `  thisinmind,itdirectsourattentiontothetagalongprayerfor   reliefsetoutattheendof_Dowling_'sjudicialcomplaint,which h asksthecourttoenjoin"MMIC,itsagents,employees,and d successors,fromcontinuingtoviolate[his]rights."MMICthen  asseveratesthatthisprayerforinjunctivereliefagainstMMIC's l "agents"qualifiesasaclaimfornonmonetaryreliefmadeagainst h MMIC'sdirectorsandofficers.   ` Aprayerforinjunctivereliefagainstacompany,which p  incidentallyreferstothecompany'sagents,doesnotqualifyasa !l" claimmadeagainsttheagentsbecauseitdoesnotdemandrelief "$ fromthemintheirpersonalcapacities.Althoughtheagentscanbe t$& enjoined"totheextentthatthecompanyitselfisenjoined"as  &p!( corporaterepresentatives,seeFed.R.Civ.P.65(d)(2),they '#* cannotbeheldlegallyliableintheirpersonalcapacitiesunless x)$, anduntiltheyarejoinedaspartiestothesuit.See_Nat'l_ԀBank $+t&. ofAriz.v.St.PaulFire&MarineIns.Co.,975P.2d711,716  (Ariz.Ct.App.1999)(holdingthatbecausedirectorsandofficers \ wereneithernamedasdefendantsnorsubjecttodemandsforrelief, X noclaimwasmadeagainstthem);cf.SECv.Coffey,493F.2d1304,   1310(6thCir.1974)(reiterating"basicequityprinciple"that `  whenaninjunction"isdirectedtoacorporation,italsoruns  \  againstthecorporation'sofficers,intheircorporatecapacities"   (emphasissupplied;internalquotationmarksomitted)). d   ` Soitishere.Becausenoneofthedirectorsorofficers `  wasnamedasadefendantin_Dowling_'sjudicialcomplaint,that   complaintcouldnotbeaneffectivevehicleformakingameaningful h demandforreliefagainstthem.SeeBuckingham_Aparts_.,Ltd.v. d LibertyMut.Ins.Co.,508N.Y.S.2d493,495(N.Y.App.Div.1986)  (holdingthatprayerforreliefagainstcorporatepolicyholderand l its"directors,officers,[and]agents"didnotamounttoaclaim h againstthedirectorsandofficersbecause"nodirectorsor  officerswerenamedasdefendants"). p   ` MMIChasonelastshotinitssling.Itnotesthe !l" wordingofthegeneralreleasesignedby_Dowling_Ԁandarguesthat "$ thiswordingisanadmissionthat_Dowling_'scivilaction t$& constitutedaclaimmadeagainstMMIC'sdirectorsandofficers.  &p!( Thisargumentrunsalongthefollowinglines.Thereleasesays '#* that_Dowling_Ԁ"herebyreleasesandagreestowaiveanyclaimshemay x)$, haveagainstMMIC,anditsofficers,agents,employees,attorneys, $+t&. [and]membersoftheBoardofDirectors...ofandfromanyand  allactions,causesofaction,suits,claimsordemandsfordamages \ ...nowexistingorarisinginthefuture."Thebreadthofthis X taxonomymeans,in_MMIC_'sview,that_Dowling_'sclaimmusthavebeen   madeagainstthesameclassesofpersons(including_MMIC_'sofficers `  anddirectors).  \   ` Thisargumentisanonsequitur._Dowling_ԀnamedMMIC   aloneasadefendantinthecivilaction,and_Dowling_ԀandMMIC d  settledthecasewhileitstoodinthatposture.Thefactthat `  MMIC,asaconditionofthesettlement,prudentlyrequired_Dowling_   torenounceanypotentialclaimsthathemighthaveagainstits h directorsandofficersdoesnotexpandtheparametersofthecivil d action.Nordoesthereleasetransform,bysomemysterious  alchemy,anoncoveredallegationofwrongdoingintoacovered l claim.SeeRichardson_Elecs_.,Ltd.v.Fed.Ins.Co.,120F.Supp. h 2d698,704(N.D.Ill.2000)(holdingthatareleaseofpotential  liabilityagainstacompany'sofficersdidnot"translateintoan p  actualclaimagainstthem").Itwouldmakenosensetoallowan !l" insuredtomanufacturecoveragebythesimpleexpedientof "$ insisting,asaconditionofsettlement,thataplaintiffframea t$& releasemorebroadlythantheplaintiffhadframedtheclaim  &p!( actuallymade. '#*  $+t&.  III.CONCLUSION   ` Weneedgonofurther.Forthereasonselucidatedabove, x weholdthatthedistrictcourtdidnoterringrantingsummary $t judgmentinfavorofIndianHarbor.   Ѐ  |  e Affirmed.