Moore v. Metropolitan Property and Liability Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 February 1988 |
| Citation | 401 Mass. 1010,519 N.E.2d 265 |
| Parties | Patrick MOORE v. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Andre A. Sansoucy, (Richard L. Neumeier, Boston, with him), for defendant.
Joseph T. Moore, Boston, for plaintiff.
Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and WILKINS, LIACOS, NOLAN and LYNCH, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
This is the second of six cases we decide today concerning the stacking of underinsured motorist coverage when more than one vehicle is covered under the same Massachusetts motor vehicle policy. The significant circumstances of this case are the same as those set forth in the first case in this group. See LeCuyer v. Metropolitan Property & Liab. Ins. Co., 401 Mass. 709, 519 N.E.2d 263 (1988).
The motor vehicle accident occurred in August, 1984. The plaintiff, who was injured while a passenger in a car of a third party, makes a claim that, as a member of his father's household, he is entitled to recover $10,000 of underinsured motorist coverage as to each of the two vehicles insured under his father's motor vehicle policy. The insurer argues that the plaintiff is entitled to recover only $10,000, the single limit stated for underinsured motorist coverage on the coverage selections page of the policy. A Superior Court judge allowed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant insurer's similar motion. The judgment declared that an additional $10,000 of underinsured motorist coverage was available to the plaintiff. We granted the insurer's application for direct appellate review. We reverse the judgment for the reasons stated in our opinion in the LeCuyer case and direct that judgment shall be entered declaring the plaintiff is not entitled to an additional $10,000 of underinsured motorist coverage.
Although he did not argue in the Superior Court that the policy language was ambiguous, the plaintiff makes such an argument now in support of the judgment entered below. Our consideration of such an argument on appeal could be prejudicial to the interests of the defendant. We discuss the issue, however, because we can put the matter to rest. The plaintiff perceives an ambiguity in policy language that says that underinsured motorist coverage will be available, in excess of a legally responsible person's insurance, in order to pay the balance of the damages "up to the limits shown for [underinsurance coverage] on your Coverage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Terra Industries v. Com. Ins. Co. of America
...by the Commissioner of Insurance and not the insurer"; internal quotations and citations omitted); Moore v. Metropolitan Property & Liab. Ins. Co., 401 Mass. 1010, 519 N.E.2d 265 (1988) (rejecting the contra proferentem rule, citing Bilodeau, infra.); Bilodeau v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 3......
-
Royal-Globe Ins. Co. v. Craven, ROYAL-GLOBE
..."because the policy language is controlled by the Commissioner of Insurance and not the insurer." Moore v. Metropolitan Property & Liab. Ins. Co., 401 Mass. 1010, 1011, 519 N.E.2d 265 (1988), citing Bilodeau v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 392 Mass. 537, 541, 467 N.E.2d 137 (1984). See Car......
-
Russell v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co.
...780 P.2d 142 (1989); Hoffman v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n, 309 Md. 167, 179, 522 A.2d 1320, 1326 (1987); Moore v. Metro. Property & Liab. Ins. Co., 401 Mass. 1010, 519 N.E.2d 265 (1988); Maas v. Allstate Ins. Co., 365 N.W.2d 256 (Minn.1985); Gelinas v. Metro. Property & Liab. Ins. Co., 131 N......
-
Mitcheson v. Izdepski
...is an objective one. Bond Bros., Inc. v. Robinson, 393 Mass. 546, 551, 471 N.E.2d 1332 (1984). Moore v. Metropolitan Property & Liab. Ins. Co., 401 Mass. 1010, 1011, 519 N.E.2d 265 (1988). Jefferson Ins. Co. v. Holyoke, supra 23 Mass.App.Ct. at 476, 503 N.E.2d 474. Applying such a standard,......