## Facts

- Plymouth Rubber manufactured and shipped pipe-wrapping materials and adhesive primer to Khorramshahr, Iran, for a customer.
- The customer rejected the shipment as nonconforming; Plymouth sent a quality control agent to inspect.
- The agent observed the goods stored outdoors on the dock and noted some packaging damage from weather exposure.
- Plymouth obtained a “Special Marine Policy” from INA, through a broker, insuring the goods “while at” the Iranian dock; the policy insured cargo at dockside, not any vessel.
- The policy included (1) a standard “perils of the sea” clause and (2) a shore clause extending coverage for certain risks on shore, including “collision, derailment, overturning or other accident to the conveyance.”
- Later inspections showed the cargo was roughly handled and improperly stored outdoors at the dock, causing damage.
- Plymouth submitted a claim; INA denied coverage on the ground that negligent handling and storage were not covered perils.
- Plymouth sued for policy benefits and for unfair or deceptive practices under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for INA on the coverage and chapter 93A counts, and Plymouth appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a traditional “perils of the sea” clause covers cargo damage caused by negligent handling and improper outdoor storage while the cargo is on a dock.
2. Whether a shore clause covering “collision, derailment, overturning or other accident to the conveyance” applies to cargo damage on a dock when no accident involving a truck, railcar, or similar conveyance occurred.
3. Whether the policy language was ambiguous such that it should be construed against the insurer to find coverage.
4. Whether INA’s denial of the claim, in light of the policy terms, could constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice under G.L. c. 93A.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court affirmed summary judgment for INA.
- The “perils of the sea” clause did not cover damage from negligent handling or improper storage of cargo on a dock.
- The shore clause did not cover dockside damage absent a collision or other accident to the conveyance carrying the goods.
- The policy terms were unambiguous; the court declined to force an expanded reading to create coverage.
- Because the loss was not covered, INA’s denial did not support liability under G.L. c. 93A.

## Legal Principles

- “Perils of the sea” in standard marine insurance refers to extraordinary, fortuitous sea-related casualties, not ordinary negligence in handling or storage on land.
- Standard marine form terms are construed according to their settled meaning; unusual commercial circumstances do not alter clear clause scope without clear language.
- A shore clause covering “collision, derailment, overturning or other accident to the conveyance” is limited to mishaps involving the conveyance itself, not careless handling or storage of cargo on a dock.
- Contra proferentem applies only when contract language is genuinely ambiguous; courts will not adopt strained meanings to manufacture ambiguity.
- A legally correct coverage denial, based on the policy’s unambiguous terms, does not constitute an unfair or deceptive practice under G.L. c. 93A.

## Conclusion

The court held that a dockside-only marine cargo policy using standard “perils of the sea” and “accident to the conveyance” language did not insure against damage caused by rough handling and outdoor storage on the dock, and it affirmed summary judgment for the insurer on both coverage and chapter 93A claims.


Plymouth Rubber Co. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., Inc., 18 Mass. App. Ct. 364, 465 N.E.2d 1234 (1984)