August A. Busch & Co. of Mass. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 18 May 1959 |
Citation | 158 N.E.2d 351,339 Mass. 239 |
Parties | AUGUST A. BUSCH & CO. OF MASSACHUSETTS, Inc., and another, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INS. CO. and another. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Thomas D. Burns and Frank L. Kozol, Boston, for plaintiffs.
Thomas H. Mahony, Boston (Edward F. Mahony and George T. Padula, Boston, with him), for defendants.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and RONAN, WILLIAMS, COUNIHAN and WHITTEMORE, JJ.
This is a suit in equity under G.L. c. 231A which is reported without decision on the bill as amended, the answer, and the statement of agreed facts. The plaintiffs are August A. Busch & Company of Massachusetts, Inc., and Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Company, Ltd., the latter being added on motion. The defendants are Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and U-Dryvit Auto Rental Company, Inc. Reference to the parties is hereinafter made by abbreviated designation. The issues sought to be determined are the respective liabilities of the two insurance companies on liability insurance policies in the circumstances to be described.
On July 5, 1949, Busch, a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of bottled beer and ale, was the lessee of a motor truck owned by U-Dryvit. Busch had a so called 'Comprehensive General and Automobile Policy' issued by Zurich insuring it against liability to pay damages 'because of bodily injury * * * sustained by any person or persons and caused by accident.' The limit of liability for bodily injury was stated to be $100,000 for each person, with the qualifying provision that with respect to motor vehicles leased by Busch from U-Dryvit the 'insurance afforded shall operate only as excess insurance over and above the amount of $10,000 for bodily injury to each person and subject to that limit for each person.' U-Dryvit had a motor vehicle liability policy issued by Liberty which was applicable to the said leased truck while used by Busch. This policy purported to insure the lessee against liability to 'pay * * * damages to others for bodily injury * * * caused by the ownership, operation, maintenance, control or use of the motor vehicle.' It was declared in the policy that 'use of the motor vehicle for the purposes stated includes the loading and unloading thereof.' This policy stated that the limit of liability for bodily injury was $10,000 for each person and provided that 'the company shall not be liable under this policy for a greater proportion of such loss than the applicable limit of liability * * * bears to the total applicable limit of liability of all valid and collectible insurance against such loss.'
On the date above mentioned Busch was using the truck to deliver cartons of bottled beer to a restaurant on Essex Street in Boston.
The question for decision is whether Liberty is obligated to pay Busch $10,000 on account of the damages paid to Smith and $217.55 on account of costs, with interest thereon.
The case presents for the first time in this Commonwealth the question of the extent of coverage provided by a clause in a motor vehicle liability policy that the 'use' of a motor vehicle shall include its loading and unloading. In other jurisdictions judicial opinion has differed (see cases collected in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dryden Oil Co. of New England, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...44 N.E.2d 687, 689 (1942)), and ambiguous terms are construed against the insurer. Id. (citing August A. Busch & Co. of Mass. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 339 Mass. 239, 158 N.E.2d 351, 353 (1959)). Once an insured establishes that a claim comes within the terms of coverage, the insurer must d......
-
Wilkinson v. Citation Ins. Co.
...them and in favor of the insured." Cody v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., supra, quoting August A. Busch & Co. of Mass., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 339 Mass. 239, 243, 158 N.E.2d 351 (1959). The interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law. See Cody v. Connecticut Gen. ......
-
Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company. v. Statemen Ins. Co., 1169A223
...Both operations together constituted the act of 'loading' the vehicle.' Later, August A. Busch & Co. of Massachusetts v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (1958), 339 Mass. 239, 242, 158 N.E.2d 351, 353, added these reasons for the broadened interpretation of the loading-unloading clause, i.......
-
M. Dematteo Const. Co. v. Century Indem. Co.
...must be resolved against the insurance company that employed them and in favor of the insured." August A. Busch & Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 339 Mass. 239, 243, 158 N.E.2d 351 (1959); see also Newtowne Mfg., 187 F.2d at 684 (noting that policy provision ought be construed "most strongly"......