Dunn v. Travelers Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 August 1978 |
| Citation | 378 N.E.2d 1007,6 Mass.App.Ct. 910 |
| Parties | Mary C. DUNN v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
John F. Keenan, Worcester, Harold D. Donohue, Worcester, with him for plaintiff.
Alfred Sigel, Boston, for General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp., Limited.
Richard W. McLeod, Worcester, for The Travelers Insurance Co.
Before HALE, C. J., and ARMSTRONG and BROWN, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
1. The plaintiff's husband sustained bodily injuries when a motor vehicle in which he was a passenger and which was insured by the defendant General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd. (General), collided with a motor vehicle insured by the defendant The Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers). The plaintiff and her husband have commenced actions against the owners and operators of both vehicles in which the plaintiff alleges that she has sustained damages for loss of consortium. See Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 364 Mass. 153, 302 N.E.2d 555 (1973). Each of the insurance policies provides coverage for liabilities its insured might incur arising out of bodily injuries sustained by other persons, up to limits of $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident in the General policy and up to $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident in the Travelers' policy. The present action is one for declaratory relief, in which the parties seek to resolve the question whether any damage award the plaintiff may recover for loss of consortium will be subject, along with any other damages she and her husband may recover arising out of his injuries, to the lower, per-person policy limits, or whether her damage for loss of consortium will be recoverable out of the higher, per-accident policy limits. We think that the judge was correct in ruling that under the terms of the two policies the per-person limits apply to the aggregate damage awards recovered by the plaintiff and her spouse arising out of his bodily injuries. Both policies contain "limits of liability" clauses which, in closely similar wording, provide that the limit of liability applicable to "each person" is the limit of the company's liability for all damages arising out of bodily injury sustained by one person, and it is clear from the syntax of each clause that the words, "sustained by one person," modify the words, "bodily injury," and not the word, "damages." Compare Saltzberg v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 326 Mass. 351, 353-355, 94 N.E.2d 269 (1950). See also ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bilodeau v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
...is supported by Saltzberg v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 326 Mass. 351, 94 N.E.2d 269 (1950), and by Dunn v. Travelers Ins. Co., 6 Mass.App.Ct. 910, 378 N.E.2d 1007 (1978). In Saltzberg, this court held that a husband who paid for his wife's medical expenses did not suffer a distinct inju......
-
Lepic By and Through Lepic v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co.
...v. Hodges, 221 Ga. 355, 357, 144 S.E.2d 723, 724-25 (1965) (wife's loss of consortium claim limited); Dunn v. Travelers Ins. Co., 6 Mass.App.Ct. 910, 910-11, 378 N.E.2d 1007, 1008 (1978) (same); Holtz v. Mutual Serv. Casualty Co., 264 Minn. 121, 123, 117 N.W.2d 767, 769 (1962) (husband limi......
-
Pinheiro v. Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass'n of Massachusetts
...suffers an injury which is distinct from that suffered by a malpractice plaintiff.6 JUA's reliance on Dunn v. Travelers Ins. Co., 6 Mass.App.Ct. 910, 378 N.E.2d 1007 (1978), does not help its case. The policy at issue in Dunn used the term "bodily injury." See id. at 911, 378 N.E.2d 1007. I......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Acosta, 55046
...v. Warner, 64 Cal.App.3d 957, 135 Cal.Rptr. 34 (1977), cited in Old Security v. Clemmer, supra. See also, Dunn v. Travelers Ins. Co., 6 Mass.App. 910, 378 N.E.2d 1007, 1008 (1978); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Cornelsen, 272 Md. 48, 321 A.2d 149, 150 (1974); Skroh v. Travelers Ins. Co., 227 S......