Lane v. Worcester Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 February 1982 |
| Citation | 13 Mass.App.Ct. 923,430 N.E.2d 874 |
| Parties | William LANE et al. v. WORCESTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Timothy R. Loff, Boston, for plaintiffs.
Edward P. Healy, Worcester, for defendant.
Before GREANEY, PERRETTA and KASS, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The insureds, William Lane and John J. Lane, appeal from a judgment which was entered in the insurer's favor pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 56, 365 Mass. 824 (1974).
The insureds, owners of an apartment complex, impleaded their insurer on a complaint brought against them and their employee, a security officer at the complex, by a tenant. In his complaint, the tenant alleges that he was wrongfully arrested in his apartment by the security officer for assault and battery, that he was handcuffed and transported to a police station, and that the criminal charge against him was disposed of with the following notation having been made on the criminal complaint: "Dismissed on motion of Defendant re: arrest made without warrant after incident had ceased."
The insurer maintains that while the security officer may not have intended the results of his actions, he intentionally arrested the tenant, cf. Henderson v. Travelers Ins. Co., 262 Mass. 522, 160 N.E. 415 (1928), and, thus, as matter of law, the event was not an "occurrence" within the coverage of its comprehensive general liability and general liability policies. As defined by those policies, an occurrence is "an accident ... which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured."
In construing the policies, we are mindful that "(t)he term 'accident' is to be broadly construed in a policy insuring against damage by accident." Beacon Textiles Corp. v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 355 Mass. 643, 645, 246 N.E.2d 671 (1969). See Vappi & Co., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 348 Mass. 427, 432, 204 N.E.2d 273 (1965). There the court held: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quincy Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Abernathy
...another way, an occurrence caused by the insured which is not an "accident" (emphasis supplied). 2 See Lane v. Worcester Mut. Ins. Co., 13 Mass.App. 923, 923-924, 430 N.E.2d 874 (1982). Sheehan v. Goriansky, 321 Mass. 200, 204-205, 72 N.E.2d 538 (1947). This court consistently has stated th......
-
Interco, Inc. v. Mission Ins. Co.
...occur. Quincy Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Abernathy, 393 Mass. 81, 469 N.E.2d 797, 799-800 (1984); see also Lane v. Worcester Mut. Ins. Co., 13 Mass.App. 923, 430 N.E.2d 874, 875-76 (1982) and Vappi & Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 348 Mass. 427, 204 N.E.2d 273, 276 7. When he fired Egol......
-
Quincy Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Abernathy
...or reckless acts but extends to unforeseen or unintended injuries caused by intentional acts. See Lane v. Worcester Mutual Ins. Co., 13 Mass.App.Ct. 923, 923-924, 430 N.E.2d 874 (1982). See also Vappi & Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., supra at 432, 204 N.E.2d 274. Only those injuries foreseen......
-
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Black & Decker Corp., CIVIL ACTION No. 96-10804-DPW (D. Mass. 1/27/2004)
...have held that the "occurrence" definition simply codified how courts had already construed "accident." In Lane v. Worcester Mutual Insurance Co., 13 Mass. App. Ct. 923 (1982), the court construed an "occurrence" policy but focused exclusively on the definition of "accident." The 12/5/03 Me......