Hanover Ins. Co. v. Ramsey
| Decision Date | 15 June 1989 |
| Citation | 539 N.E.2d 537,405 Mass. 1101 |
| Parties | HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY v. Paul M. RAMSEY et al. 1 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Brian J. Mone for defendants.
Stephen M.A. Woodworth, Brockton, for plaintiff.
Before WILKINS, LIACOS, ABRAMS, NOLAN and O'CONNOR, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
On May 15, 1982, Paul M. Ramsey was injured while he was a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by his employer, Howard R. Beausang. At the time of the accident, Ramsey was acting in the course and scope of his employment. As Ramsey's employer, Beausang was required by G.L. c. 152, § 25A (1986 ed.), to obtain a workers' compensation policy for Ramsey's benefit, but had failed to obtain such a policy. Ramsey sued Beausang, prevailed at trial, and won a judgment of $38,870.97. Ramsey then sought satisfaction of his judgment from Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover), which insured Beausang's vehicle at the time of the accident.
Hanover's policy insuring Beausang (policy) excludes from coverage "any employee of the insured who is entitled to payments or benefits under the provisions of the Massachusetts Workers' Compensation Act." After Ramsey sought satisfaction of his judgment against Beausang from Hanover, Hanover brought this declaratory judgment action against Ramsey and Beausang, arguing that the exclusion precludes Ramsey from recovering. A judge in the Superior Court entered summary judgment in favor of Hanover, declaring that Ramsey could not recover under Beausang's automobile policy. We affirm.
The question is whether an employee should be considered "entitled to" workers' compensation benefits, within the meaning of an exclusion to an insurance policy, when his employer is required by law to obtain workers' compensation insurance but has in fact failed to do so. 2 When the words of an insurance contract "are plain and free from ambiguity they must be construed in their usual and ordinary sense." Sherman v. Employers' Liab. Assurance Corp. Ltd., 343 Mass. 354, 356, 178 N.E.2d 864 (1961). Ramsey was "entitled to" workers' compensation benefits because every employer is required to "provide for the payment to his employees of the compensation provided for by [G.L. c. 152]." G.L. c. 152, § 25A. See also G.L. c. 152, § 26 "an employee ... shall be paid compensation by the insurer or self-insurer"). Further, an employer such as Beausang who has failed to obtain workers' compensation as required by statute should not automatically be entitled to indemnification from his insurance company for the liability which results from his failure to follow the workers' compensation law. 3
Ramsey relies on several older cases of this court for the proposition that an employee is not considered to be "entitled to" workers' compensation if his employer has not obtained workers' compensation insurance. See Service Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Aronofsky, 308 Mass. 249, 252, 31 N.E.2d 837 (1941); Adams v. American Employers Ins. Co., 292 Mass. 260, 262, 198 N.E. 147 (1935); Rose v. Franklin Sur. Co., 281 Mass. 538, 541, 183 N.E. 918 (1933). These cases were decided before the Legislature made workers' compensation mandatory for employers. Previously, when an employer did not obtain workers' compensation, the employee was in no way "entitled to" it. At that time, the employer had a choice whether to purchase workers' compensation insurance. That situation has changed, however,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merlini v. Canada
...the employer to recover for a workplace injury -- even if the conduct is caused by a fellow employee. See Hanover Ins. Co. v. Ramsey, 405 Mass. 1101, 539 N.E.2d 537, 538 n.3 (1989) ("An employer who has failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance can be held liable essentially in all c......
-
American Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Rentech Steel
...998 So.2d 677, 678-79 (Fla.Ct.App.2009); Weger v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 796 P.2d 72, 74 (Colo.Ct.App.1990); Hanover Ins. Co. v. Ramsey, 405 Mass. 1101, 539 N.E.2d 537, 538 (1989); Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Revoredo, 698 So.2d 890, 892-93 (Fla.Ct.App.1997); Tri-State Constr., Inc. v. Col......
-
Kanamaru v. Holyoke Mut. Ins. Co.
...sense.'" Jacobs v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 417 Mass. 75, 77, 627 N.E.2d 463 (1994), quoting from Hanover Ins. Co. v. Ramsey, 405 Mass. 1101, 1101, 539 N.E.2d 537 (1989). The presence of equitable considerations in circumstances in which a plain reading of the policy supports a lack ......
-
Great Southwest Fire Ins. Co. v. Hercules Bldg. & Wrecking Co., Inc.
...would negligently fail in fulfilling that obligation was an excluded risk by the terms of exclusion (i). Cf. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Ramsey, 405 Mass. 1101, 1101, 539 N.E.2d 537 (1989). (ii) Duty to use reasonable care to maintain safe workplace. When it comes to the risk that Monsini would fai......