Jussim v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 15 April 1993 |
Citation | 610 N.E.2d 954,415 Mass. 24 |
Parties | Estelle JUSSIM & another 1 v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Allen R. Miller (John N. Love, with him), for defendant.
Charles W. Danis, Jr., for plaintiffs.
Stephen D. Marcus & Mark J. Seplak of Illinois, & Richard L. Neumeier, for Ins. Environmental Litigation Ass'n, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
Before LIACOS, C.J., and NOLAN, LYNCH, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.
We granted the defendant's application for further appellate review in this case to decide whether the plaintiffs are entitled to coverage under their homeowner's insurance policy issued by the defendant for damages incurred when home heating oil migrated onto the plaintiffs' property after the oil was negligently spilled at a neighbor's house. 2 We conclude that the policy covered the event.
The case arose through the plaintiffs' action in the Superior Court seeking a declaration that they were entitled to coverage under the defendant's policy for their damages. In connection with the action, the plaintiffs and the defendant stipulated to the material facts. Those facts are set forth in the Appeals Court opinion, 33 Mass.App.Ct. at 236-237, 597 N.E.2d 1379, as follows:
Based on these facts, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs contended that their damages were caused by the negligence of others for which the defendant's policy provides coverage. The defendant maintained that the damages were subject to a provision in the policy which excluded from coverage "loss ... caused by ... release, discharge or dispersal of contaminants or pollutants." A judge in the Superior Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and an amended judgment entered which declared that the plaintiffs were entitled to coverage and payment under the policy.
The Superior Court judge relied on the decision in Standard Elec. Supply Co. v. Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 1 Mass.App.Ct. 762, 307 N.E.2d 11 (1973), in allowing summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The Appeals Court agreed that this decision controlled the case. 33 Mass.App.Ct. at 237-238, 597 N.E.2d 1379. In the Standard Elec. Supply Co. case, a water pipe burst in the basement of premises adjacent to the plaintiff's property and collected water seeped into the plaintiff's basement causing water damage to the contents located there. The defendant's insurance policy insured against "all risks of physical loss," but contained an exclusion for "loss caused by, [or] resulting from ... water below the surface of the ground including that which ... flows, seeps or leaks through ... foundations, walls, basement or other floors." Id., 1 Mass.App.Ct. at 763 & n. 1, 307 N.E.2d 11. The Appeals Court decided that the "[l]oss from the bursting of a pipe on the premises of another would seem to be the kind of 'fortuitous loss' which is 'not usually covered under other insurance' and against which an 'all risk' policy is designed to extend protection" (citations omitted). Id. at 763, 307 N.E.2d 11. The court then went on to reject the defendant's contention that the exclusion applied, stating that the contention was "inconsistent with the well established principle that recovery on an insurance policy is allowed 'where the insured risk itself set into operation a chain of causation in which the last step may have been an excepted risk.' " Id. at 765-766, 307 N.E.2d 11, quoting Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 3083, at 311.
The principle quoted above is based on a test which has long been used by this court to resolve coverage controversies in chain causation cases. That test seeks to determine the efficient proximate cause of the loss. If that cause is an insured risk, there will be coverage even though the final form of the property damage, produced by a series of related events, appears to take the loss outside of the terms of the policy. The decision in Lynn Gas & Elec. Co. v. Meriden Fire Ins. Co., 158 Mass. 570, 575, 33 N.E. 690 (1893), explained this test of causation in the following manner: (Citations omitted.)
Three decisions furnish examples of our application of the train of events test to coverage disputes in first-person insurance cases. In Lynn Gas & Elec. Co., supra, coverage was found for damaged machinery under a fire insurance policy, where a minor fire caused a short circuit in electrical wiring, which affected an electric dynamo. This, in turn, resulted in damage to machinery connected by belts and pulleys to the dynamo, some of which disintegrated. Damage then resulted to yet other pieces of equipment, none of which had been touched by the fire itself. This court held the fire to be the proximate cause of the loss in accordance with the causation test stated therein, and permitted recovery. Id. at 577, 33 N.E. 690.
In Jiannetti v. National Fire Ins. Co., 277 Mass. 434, 439, 178 N.E. 640 (1931), firefighters removed and replaced a skylight over an insured store while fighting a fire in adjoining premises. There was evidence that the skylight was improperly replaced, resulting in water damage to inventory when the skylight leaked during a rain storm. This court held that the jury could correctly find a proximate causal relationship between the acts of the fire department in fighting the fire and the rain damage, thereby upholding an award under the insurance policy which afforded protection only for loss by fire. Id. at 440, 178 N.E. 640.
In Barnett v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 304 Mass. 564, 565-568, 24 N.E.2d 662 (1939), the insured had a life insurance policy providing double indemnity for accidental death. He was involved in an automobile accident, was treated for nine days in a hospital and then returned to work. He subsequently developed pneumonia and died three months after the accident. There was evidence that he was weakened by the accident and that this weakness permitted the pneumonia bacteria, which may not have entered his body until after the accident, to take hold and thrive. This court held that the jury were warranted in finding the accident alone to be the proximate cause of the insured's death and to award double indemnity. Id. at 568, 24 N.E.2d 662.
The law in other jurisdictions generally is in accord with the Standard Elec. Supply Co. case and our case law. See Sabella v. Wisler, 59 Cal.2d 21, 31-32, 27 Cal.Rptr. 689, 377 P.2d 889 (1963); Frontis v. Milwaukee Ins. Co., 156 Conn. 492, 499, 242 A.2d 749 (1968); Fawcett House, Inc. v. Great Cent. Ins. Co., 280 Minn. 325, 159 N.W.2d 268 (1968); Villella v. Public Employees Mut. Ins. Co., 106 Wash.2d 806, 725 P.2d 957 (1986). See also 18 G. Couch, Insurance § 74:711 (2d rev. ed. 1983). The defendant has offered no persuasive authority to the contrary. 3 In this case, it was stipulated that, as a result of one or more negligent acts on property adjacent to the plaintiffs' property, fuel oil seeped underground and damaged the plaintiffs' property. The defendant's insurance policy expressly covered losses caused by the negligence of a third party. As the Appeals Court correctly reasoned: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Elegant Massage, LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Jussim v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. , 33 Mass. App. Ct. 235, 238–39, 597 N.E.2d 1379, 1382 (1992), aff'd as amended , 415 Mass. 24, 610 N.E.2d 954 (1993) ; see also, St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Gen. Injectables & Vaccines, Inc. , No. CIV.A.98-07370R, 2000 WL 270954, at *5, n.5 (W.D.......
-
Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hatch, Civ. No. 92-53-SD.
...P.2d 622 (1993) (claim covered because of a hostile fire exception to the policy's pollution exclusion); Jussim v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., 415 Mass. 24, 610 N.E.2d 954 (1993) (finding that a homeowner's policy did not clearly and unambiguously exclude coverage for pollution caused by an......
-
Dryden Oil Co. of New England, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co.
..." Hanover New England Ins. Co. v. Smith, 35 Mass.App.Ct. 417, 621 N.E.2d 382, 383 n. 2 (1993) (quoting Jussim v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., 415 Mass. 24, 610 N.E.2d 954, 955 (1993)). Whether or not oil or industrial chemicals necessarily constitute pollutants in all forms and circumstances......
-
Boazova v. Safety Ins. Co.
...directly or indirectly caused loss, even though contributing cause of loss may have been covered peril); Jussim v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., 415 Mass. 24, 30–31, 610 N.E.2d 954 (1993) (suggesting anticoncurrent cause provision in general exclusions would operate to foreclose coverage notw......
-
Chapter 4
...in fire department’s ordering the church closed was “direct physical loss”). Massachusetts: Jussim v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Co., 610 N.E.2d 954 (Mass. 1993) (pollution exclusion inapplicable to environmental contamination and the cleanup associated therewith because efficient proximat......
-
CHAPTER 4
...968 N.E.2d at 394 n.4, or if a covered cause sets in motion a “train of events” leading to the loss, Jussim v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., 610 N.E.2d 954, 955-56 (Mass. 1993).44 Looking to contract around the concurrent-cause doctrine, the insurance industry has come up with anticoncurrent-cause cl......