Middlesex Ins. Co. v. American Emp. Ins. Co.
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
| Citation | 9 Mass.App.Ct. 855,400 N.E.2d 882 |
| Decision Date | 29 February 1980 |
| Parties | The MIDDLESEX INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Page 882
v.
AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY.
Decided Feb. 29, 1980.
[9 Mass.App.Ct. 856] Gerard L. Pellegrini, Springfield, for defendant.
Morton J. Sweeney, Springfield (Patricia A. Bobba, Springfield, with him), for plaintiff.
Before GOODMAN, ROSE and KASS, JJ.
[9 Mass.App.Ct. 855] 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
Page 883
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...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 882 The wrongs to which the policy language extends are those which cause "property damage." See Hazen Paper Co. v. Unit......
-
Jefferson Ins. Co. of New York v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 95-P-1618
...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 (1995). 10 Althou......
-
Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Stolberg, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-cv-11279-NMG
...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 ambiguity is not "c......
-
Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fontneau, 06-P-930.
...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 of its contr......
-
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 882 The wrongs to which the policy language extends are those which cause "property damage." See Hazen Paper Co. v. Unit......
-
Jefferson Ins. Co. of New York v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 95-P-1618
...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 (1995). 10 Althou......
-
Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Stolberg, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-cv-11279-NMG
...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 ambiguity is not "c......
-
Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fontneau, 06-P-930.
...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 of its contr......