Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Bowes
Decision Date | 05 August 1980 |
Citation | 409 N.E.2d 185,381 Mass. 278 |
Parties | JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. v. John T. BOWES et al. 1 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Evan T. Lawson, Boston (Howard J. Wayne, Boston, with him), for plaintiff.
Stephen A. Moore, Boston (Jean F. Farrington, Boston, with him), for St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
Before HENNESSEY, C. J., and QUIRICO, WILKINS and ABRAMS, JJ.
This is an action by Johnson Controls, Inc. (Johnson), to reach and apply the proceeds of legal malpractice insurance policies issued by St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul) to attorney John T. Bowes (Bowes). See G.L. c. 214, § 3(6). A judge of the Superior Court in Middlesex County granted St. Paul's motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment dismissing Johnson's claim. The appeal was transferred to this court on our own motion.
Between 1960 and 1972 Bowes, then a member of the Massachusetts bar, was retained by Johnson to perform legal services in its behalf. St. Paul issued Bowes legal malpractice insurance policies, which were in effect from July, 1962, to July, 1968, and had a $1,000,000 an occurrence limit of liability.
On June 4, 1973, Johnson brought an action against Bowes in the Superior Court in Norfolk County charging six counts of negligence in his performance of legal services. On January 10, 1974, counsel for Johnson notified St. Paul of the malpractice action against Bowes. Counsel also provided St. Paul with copies of the declaration and writ and rescheduled a deposition of Bowes from January 30 to February 13, 1974, at the request of St. Paul's representative. On February 7, 1974, St. Paul notified Bowes that it disclaimed coverage and would not honor the claim or provide a defense. St. Paul based its disclaimer on Bowes's failures to give written notification of the claim and to forward suit papers to the company in violation of the provisions of his insurance contract. 2 A copy of St. Paul's letter to Bowes was sent to attorneys for Johnson.
Subsequently, Johnson's action in Norfolk County against Bowes was referred to a master, who found that Bowes had been negligent in all six instances claimed by Johnson. The master's report was confirmed, and Johnson was awarded judgment against Bowes in the amount of $31,698.28 plus $27.50 for costs. The judgment has not been satisfied.
Johnson raises several issues in this appeal, but we reach only the first wherein Johnson urges this court to reexamine the present rule, applicable to some liability insurance, that the failure of an insured to comply with the notice requirements of a policy, in the absence of estoppel or waiver and regardless of lack of prejudice to the insurer, bars recovery. See Spooner v. General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp., --- Mass. ---, --- a, 397 N.E.2d 1290 (1979), and cases cited. In Spooner v. General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp., supra at --- b, 397 N.E.2d at 1291, we noted that the notice requirement was "an aspect of contract law that we (had) not previously questioned." In sharp contrast to the case at bar, however, Spooner involved a motor vehicle liability insurance policy, one of the types of policies affected by a prospective legislative amendment of the notice requirement. 3 Id. at --- - --- c, 397 N.E.2d 1290. This court deferred to the Legislature's determination that the change in common law should be prospective only and refused the plaintiff's request that we "depart retroactively from the meaning and import that we have given for at least two generations to a significant condition of contracts of insurance." Id. at --- d, 397 N.E.2d at 1291. The policy in the instant case does not come within the confines of the legislative amendment. Consequently, it presents a more appropriate vehicle for reconsideration of our common law.
Although a majority of courts adhere to a strict contractual interpretation of notice provisions as a condition precedent to an insurer's liability, there is a recent trend to eschew such technical forfeitures of insurance coverage unless the insurer has been materially prejudiced by virtue of late notification. See generally 8 J.A. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 4732 (1962); 13 G. Couch, Insurance § 49:88 (2d ed. 1965); Comment, The Materiality of Prejudice to the Insurer as a Result of the Insured's Failure to Give Timely Notice, 74 Dick.L.Rev. 260 (1970). In rejecting the strict contractual approach, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated: Brakeman v. Potomac Ins. Co., 472 Pa. 66, 72, 371 A.2d 193, 196 (1977). Courts have also been influenced to adopt a more liberal approach to the notice question because the classic contractual approach involves a forfeiture. In Cooper v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 51 N.J. 86, 93-94, 237 A.2d 870, 873-74 (1968), the court commented: See Miller v. Marcantel, 221 So.2d 557, 559 (La.App. 1969); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 255 (Tent.Draft No. 7, 1972).
The basic purpose of a strict interpretation of a notice clause is to enable an insurer to make "seasonable investigation of the facts relating to liability." Bayer & Mingolla Constr. Co. v. Deschenes, 348 Mass. 594, 600, 205 N.E.2d 208, 212 (1965). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Halley v. Birbiglia
...law cases, in which reliance upon existing judicial precedent often influences individual action. See Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Bowes, 381 Mass. 278, 409 N.E.2d 185 (1980) (insurance contracts); Rosenberg v. Lipnick, 377 Mass. 666, 389 N.E.2d 385 (1979) (antenuptial contracts). By contrast,......
-
American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Beatrice Companies, Inc., 86 C 1874.
...of insurance coverage unless the insurer has been materially prejudiced by virtue of late notification." Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Bowes, 381 Mass. 278, 409 N.E.2d 185, 187 (1980).11 Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 175, Section 112, which codifies the modern approach, reads as An insura......
-
Cooperative Fire Ins. Ass'n of Vermont v. White Caps, Inc.
...breach. To do so would be unfair to insureds. Id. 237 A.2d at 873-74; accord Jones, 821 S.W.2d at 802-03; Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Bowes, 381 Mass. 278, 409 N.E.2d 185, 187 (1980); Brakeman v. Potomac Ins. Co., 472 Pa. 66, 371 A.2d 193, 196 (1977). Writing nearly a quarter century ago, Jus......
-
Alcazar v. Hayes
...1235 (Me.1985); Great Am. Ins. Co. v. C.G. Tate Const., 303 N.C. 387, 279 S.E.2d 769, 774 (N.C.1981); Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Bowes, 381 Mass. 278, 409 N.E.2d 185, 187 (Mass.1980); Suter, 46 Me. L.Rev. at Another predominant basis for the modern trend is that it advances the public policy......