Citation Ins. Co. v. Gomez

Decision Date06 January 1998
Citation688 N.E.2d 951,426 Mass. 379
PartiesCITATION INSURANCE COMPANY v. Brenda GOMEZ & others 1 ; ISU Anderson and Baker Insurance Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

John G. Ryan, Boston (Edward M. Joyce, Jr., Charlestown, with him), for plaintiff.

Thomas J. Delaney, Salem, for Brenda Gomez & others.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and ABRAMS, LYNCH, GREANEY, FRIED, MARSHALL and IRELAND, JJ.

ABRAMS, Justice.

The plaintiff, Citation Insurance Company (Citation), filed a complaint in the Superior Court seeking a declaration that it has no duty to defend and indemnify its insureds, the defendants Brenda and Roger Gomez, for losses asserted by a minor who was injured while playing on an abandoned structure on the Gomezes' land. See G.L. c. 231A. On cross motions for summary judgment the Superior Court judge allowed the Gomezes' motion for summary judgment and denied Citation's cross motion, declaring that the insurance policy was ambiguous and therefore must be construed against Citation, the insurer. We allowed Citation's application for direct appellate review. We conclude that the Gomez land was not vacant and therefore the policy does not cover the subject property. We reverse.

The facts are not in dispute. Brenda Gomez has owned the subject property, consisting of about 175,000 square feet of land in Swampscott, since her mother's death in 1992. At one time, Brenda Gomez's father built on the property a small concrete bunker with a radio tower for use in his trucking business. The area of the bunker is about one hundred square feet. The property, including the bunker and tower, had been abandoned and unused since the late 1960s.

In March, 1995, a minor was injured while playing on the subject property. She put her left index finger through a padlock hole on the door to the bunker. Her friend suddenly pushed the door open, severing the finger. Through her father, she sued the friend and Brenda and Roger Gomez in the Superior Court in Essex County. That lawsuit is still pending. Citation has been defending the Gomezes under a reservation of rights.

The Gomezes hold a homeowner's policy, issued by Citation, for the period from October 16, 1994, through October 16, 1995. That policy provides liability coverage for injuries arising out of an "[i]nsured location," which is defined in the policy to include, among other things not relevant here, "[v]acant land, other than farm land, owned by or rented to an 'insured.' " The term "vacant" is not defined in the policy. If the land is vacant within the meaning of the policy, it is an insured location and Citation has a duty to defend and indemnify the Gomezes in the minor's lawsuit and to indemnify them if they are found liable. Otherwise, Citation has no such duty.

In deciding the cross motions for summary judgment, the motion judge determined that reasonably intelligent persons could differ as to the meaning of the term "vacant land." Relying on dictionary definitions and case law from several jurisdictions, the judge reasoned that "vacant land" could mean either land that has no structures or improvements, or land that is unoccupied or unused. Because the latter definition, which includes the subject property, was more favorable to the insureds, the judge concluded that it was the proper one and that the subject property was an insured location. The judge therefore allowed the Gomezes' motion for summary judgment, denied Citation's cross motion, and declared that Citation had a duty to defend and indemnify the Gomezes.

Interpretation of an insurance policy is no different from interpretation of any other contract. Hakim v. Massachusetts Insurers' Insolvency Fund, 424 Mass. 275, 280, 675 N.E.2d 1161 (1997). If there is no ambiguity, we "construe the words of the policy in their usual and ordinary sense." Id., citing Cody v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins Co., 387 Mass. 142, 146, 439 N.E.2d 234 (1982). When the language of an insurance contract is ambiguous, we interpret it in the way most favorable to the insured. Hakim, supra at 281-282, 675 N.E.2d 1161. "However, an ambiguity is not created simply because a controversy exists between the parties, each favoring an interpretation contrary to the other." Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Offices Unlimited, Inc., 419 Mass. 462, 466, 645 N.E.2d 1165 (1995), citing Jefferson Ins. Co. v. Holyoke, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 472, 475, 503 N.E.2d 474 (1987). Nor does the mere existence of multiple dictionary definitions of a word, without more, suffice to create an ambiguity, for most words have multiple definitions. A term is ambiguous only if it is susceptible of more than one meaning and reasonably intelligent persons would differ as to which meaning is the proper one. Jefferson Ins. Co., supra at 474-475, 503 N.E.2d 474, citing Ober v. National Cas. Co., 318 Mass. 27, 30, 60 N.E.2d 90 (1945).

The term at issue in this policy is "vacant land." The Gomezes argue that, because the term could refer to land that is unoccupied or unused, as well as land without a structure, the judge correctly allowed their motion for summary judgment. We...

To continue reading

Request your trial
223 cases
  • In re Malden Mills Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, First Circuit
    • January 21, 2004
    ...is no ambiguity in a contract, it must be enforced according to its terms in their usual and ordinary sense. Citation Ins. Co. v. Gomez, 426 Mass. 379, 688 N.E.2d 951, 952 (1998); Freelander, 258 N.E.2d at 788. Where a contract, such as a lease, has terms that are ambiguous, uncertain, or e......
  • Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Karl's Boat Shop, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-11219-WGY
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • August 20, 2020
    ...true, however, only if "reasonably intelligent persons would differ as to which meaning is the proper one." Citation Ins. Co. v. Gomez, 426 Mass. 379, 381, 688 N.E.2d 951 (1998). As the word "misrepresentation" is a defined legal term under both maritime and Massachusetts law, it is unreaso......
  • A.W. Chesterton v. Mass. Insurers Insolv.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • December 12, 2005
    ...that controls, and the language in this case is clear. We may not invent ambiguity where none exists. See Citation Ins. Co. v. Gomez, 426 Mass. 379, 381, 688 N.E.2d 951 (1998); Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Offices Unlimited, Inc., 419 Mass. 462, 466, 645 N.E.2d 1165 (1995). We conclude that ......
  • Lexington Ins. v. General Acc. Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • August 4, 2003
    ...sparks a controversy between two parties, each of whom advocates an interpretation contrary to the other. See Citation Ins. Co. v. Gomez, 426 Mass. 379, 688 N.E.2d 951, 953 (1998); Riccio v. Am. Repub. Ins. Co., 453 Pa.Super. 364, 683 A.2d 1226, 1233 (1996), aff'd, 550 Pa. 254, 705 A.2d 422......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 3
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Business Insurance
    • Invalid date
    ...Estate of Fister v. Allstate Life Insurance Co., 366 Md. 201, 783 A.2d 194 (Md. 2001). Massachusetts: Citation Insurance Co. v. Gomez, 426 Mass. 379, 688 N.E.2d 951 (1998). Michigan: Citizens Insurance Co. v. Pro-Seal Service Group, Inc., 477 Mich. 75, 730 N.W.2d 682 (2007); Pugh v. Zefi, 2......
  • CHAPTER 3 The Insurance Contract
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Insurance for Real Estate-Related Entities
    • Invalid date
    ...Estate of Fister v. Allstate Life Insurance Co., 366 Md. 201, 783 A.2d 194 (Md. 2001). Massachusetts: Citation Insurance Co. v. Gomez, 426 Mass. 379, 688 N.E.2d 951 (1998). Michigan: Citizens Insurance Co. v. Pro-Seal Service Group, Inc., 477 Mich. 75, 730 N.W.2d 682 (2007); Pugh v. Zefi, 2......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT