Middlesex Ins. Co. v. American Emp. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 February 1980 |
| Parties | The MIDDLESEX INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Gerard L. Pellegrini, Springfield, for defendant.
Morton J. Sweeney, Springfield (Patricia A. Bobba, Springfield, with him), for plaintiff.
Before GOODMAN, ROSE and KASS, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The defendant appeals from a judgment for the plaintiff, Middlesex Insurance Company (Middlesex), entered upon the judge's findings after a hearing. Middlesex had reimbursed its insured, Oak Ridge Realty, Inc. (Oak Ridge), for damage to a building owned by Oak Ridge and leased to one Schortmann. The damage resulted from a fire accidentally caused by one of Schortmann's employees. Oak Ridge had recovered a judgment against Schortmann which remains unsatisfied. Middlesex became subrogated to the rights of Oak Ridge and brought this action under G.L. c. 175, §§ 112 and 113, and G.L. c. 214, § 3(9), against the defendant, which had issued a garage liability insurance policy to Schortmann.
The judge ruled that the property damage in question was covered under Part II, Coverage C, Division 1, of the policy issued by the defendant, entitled "Property Damage Liability," whereby the defendant promised to "pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of . . . property damage to which Part II applies, caused by accident and arising out of" certain hazards, including the "use of the premises for the purposes of a garage, and all operations necessary or incidental thereto . . . ." The issue is whether exclusionary clause (9) in Part II precludes coverage. That clause excludes recovery for "property damage to (a) property . . . rented to . . . the insured, (b) property in the care, custody or control of . . . the insured, or property as to which the insured is for any purpose exercising physical control . . . ." The defendant argues that the term "property" as used in exclusion (9) is unambiguous and should be read to include the premises wherein the garage is located, relying on the definition of the term "property damage" in the definitional section of Part II as "physical injury to or destruction of tangible property." The judge concluded, however, that the use in the policy of the words "property," "property damage," and "premises" indicates that the damage to the subject premises wherein the insured conducted his garage business was covered by the policy, and that to interpret the exclusionary clause as the defendant would have the court do would result in coverage to the insured which was unrealistically limited. See Bulyga v. Underwriters at Lloyds', London, 1 Mass.App. 359, 363, 297 N.E.2d 68 (1973). The term "premises" is used several times in Part II and is defined in the definitional section as "premises where the named insured conducts garage operations . . . ." Because the insurer has used the term "premises" in the policy to refer specifically to the real property housing the garage, it is reasonable to interpret the term "proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rubenstein v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 98-P-1650
... ... Massachusetts Blue Cross, Inc., 365 Mass. 379, 390, 311 N.E.2d 914 (1974); Middlesex Ins. Co. v. American Employers Ins ... Page 386 ... Co., 9 Mass.App.Ct. 855, 856, 400 N.E.2d ... ...
-
Jefferson Ins. Co. of New York v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.
...and requires our construction because it is "reasonably susceptible to varying readings." Middlesex Ins. Co. v. American Employers Ins. Co., 9 Mass.App.Ct. 855, 856, 400 N.E.2d 882 (1980). See also Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Offices Unlimited, Inc., 419 Mass. 462, 466, 645 N.E.2d 1165 (199......
-
Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Stolberg
...the language in an insurance contract is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning. Middlesex Ins. Co. v. American Employers Ins. Co., 9 Mass. App. Ct. 855, 856, 400 N.E.2d 882, 883 (1980) (rescript). However, "difficulty in comprehension does not equate with ambiguity," and an ambigu......
-
Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fontneau
...273 (1965); Hakim v. Massachusetts Insurers' Insolvency Fund, supra at 282, 675 N.E.2d 1161; Middlesex Ins. Co. v. American Employers Ins. Co. 9 Mass.App.Ct. 855, 856, 400 N.E.2d 882 (1980). Because Utica Mutual sought to enforce an exclusion from coverage and because it committed a breach ......