Colby v. Metropolitan Property and Cas. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 19 July 1995 |
Citation | 652 N.E.2d 128,420 Mass. 799 |
Parties | John N. COLBY, Jr. v. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
J. Michael Conley, Braintree, for plaintiff.
Alice Olsen Mann, Boston (William P. Rose with her), for defendant.
Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS and O'CONNOR, JJ.
On January 5, 1992, Michael L. Colby was operating his automobile insured by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company when it was involved in a collision with an automobile operated by Angela Colasanti. Michael Colby was killed in the accident. Colasanti was insured by a policy issued by Commerce Insurance Company providing bodily injury liability limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident. Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance Company nor Commerce Insurance Company is a party to this action. The plaintiff, John N. Colby, Jr., was Michael's father and the named insured in an automobile policy issued by the defendant, Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Metropolitan). The policy provided underinsured motorist coverage with limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. Metropolitan rejected the plaintiff's claim for payment, pursuant to his underinsured motorist coverage, of his consortium-like damages due to the loss of his son. See G.L. c. 229, § 2 (1992 ed.).
As a result, the plaintiff brought this action against Metropolitan. The complaint was entitled "Complaint for Declaratory Judgment" and demanded a judgment declaring, among other things, that the "[p]laintiff is entitled to Underinsured Motorist Coverage for his individual claims and damages arising from the death of Michael L. Colby in the accident caused by Angela Colasanti." Although, coincidentally, the plaintiff was the administrator of the estate of his son, Michael, it is clear that he did not bring this action as administrator either on behalf of Michael's estate or pursuant to G.L. c. 229, § 2, but brought it on his own behalf in his individual capacity. As he states in his reply brief, the action Thus, this case is significantly different from Smart v. Safety Ins. Co., 419 Mass. 144, 643 N.E.2d 435 (1994), which focuses on the rights of the estate of an individual who, like Michael L. Colby, was insured under his own automobile policy and was killed in a collision. As the plaintiff states in his reply brief, "the Smart decision ... simply establish[es] the proposition, with which the plaintiff in this case has no quarrel, that because Michael Colby had his own policy, the claims of Michael Colby and of the Estate of Michael Colby, (as distinguished from the claims of John N. Colby, Jr.), would not be compensable under John N. Colby, Jr.'s policy."
In this case, both parties moved for summary judgment. A judge decided the motions on a stipulation of facts, the standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy with 1991 Massachusetts mandatory endorsement, and the coverage selections page in Michael Colby's automobile policy. The judge allowed Metropolitan's motion, denied that of the plaintiff, and issued a judgment declaring that The plaintiff appealed, and we allowed his application for direct appellate review. We affirm the judgment entered in the Superior Court insofar as it declares that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits under the policy issued to him by Metropolitan.
The plaintiff's insurance policy with Metropolitan provides in including the 1991 Massachusetts mandatory endorsement as follows:
The tortfeasor's (Colasanti's) automobile liability insurance limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident were less than the $100,000/$300,000 underinsured motorist coverage of the plaintiff's Metropolitan policy, and we shall assume, favorably to the plaintiff, that Colasanti's liability coverage would not be sufficient to pay for the damages sustained by the plaintiff. See G.L. c. 229, § 2, incorporating by reference G.L. c. 229, § 1.
The policy goes on to provide in relevant part the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Sullivan
...interpretation of G.L. c. 175, § 132, as permitting an implied exception for fraud. 3 See Colby v. Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 420 Mass. 799, 806, 652 N.E.2d 128 (1995) (by approving policy in issue commissioner's view of statute made clear); Flanagan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 383 M......
-
Oliveira v. Commerce Ins. Co., 17-P-757
...to deference, that interpretation cannot stand if it is in conflict with the relevant statutes. See Colby v. Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 420 Mass. 799, 806, 652 N.E.2d 128 (1995). I thus begin by looking at the policy and statute at issue in this appeal.At the time of the accident, ......
-
Martins v. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co.
...Insurance Policies–Generally Massachusetts requires automobile insurers to use standard policies. See Colby v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. , 420 Mass. 799, 806, 652 N.E.2d 128 (1995). By statute, certain types of coverage must be included in a standard policy. Id. The statutory provision r......
-
Given v. Commerce Insurance Company, SJC-08859.
...encompass compensation for inherent diminished value in addition to compensation for the cost of repairs.8 See Colby v. Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 420 Mass. 799, 806 (1995) ("[commissioner] decides what the terms of a standard policy will be ... and the commissioner's interpretatio......