Murphy v. Safety Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 04 May 1999 |
Citation | 429 Mass. 517,709 N.E.2d 410 |
Parties | Lee MURPHY 1 v. SAFETY INSURANCE COMPANY; Lee Murphy & another, 2 third-party defendants. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Carol A. Griffin (Karyn T. Hicks with her), Boston, for Safety Insurance Company.
Edward W. McIntyre (James T. McLaughlin with him), Clinton, for the plaintiff.
Present: WILKINS, C.J., ABRAMS, LYNCH, GREANEY, FRIED, MARSHALL, & IRELAND, JJ.
We transferred this case to this court on our own motion to decide whether Safety Insurance Company (Safety) is obligated to pay underinsurance benefits under its automobile liability policy that covered the plaintiff's minor son, James Murphy, who was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident. The dispositive issue is whether the tortfeasor's excess liability policy limits should be counted in determining whether the tortfeasor's vehicle was underinsured. A judge in the Superior Court, on cross motions for summary judgment, ruled that the limits of the tortfeasor's excess liability policy should not be considered. We conclude that the limits of the excess liability policy should be counted, and, as a result, Safety is not obligated under the express terms of its policy to pay underinsurance benefits. Accordingly, we vacate the second corrected judgment and order the entry of a new judgment declaring the parties' rights in keeping with our conclusion.
The background of the case is as follows. On or about June 20, 1992, James Murphy was seriously injured while a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by his mother, Suzanne Murphy. The accident resulted from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle owned and operated by John Bisol.
The vehicle Bisol was operating was insured under a Massachusetts personal automobile insurance policy which provided optional bodily injury liability coverage limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. Bisol was also insured under a personal excess liability policy which provided limits of $1 million in coverage. The $100,000 limit of coverage under Bisol's automobile policy was paid on behalf of Bisol for damages related to the injuries sustained by James in the accident. The parties agreed that the $100,000 policy limits of Bisol's automobile policy were not sufficient to pay James's total damages. The coverage limit of $1 million under Bisol's personal excess liability policy was also paid on his behalf to reimburse James's damages.
Safety had issued a Massachusetts personal automobile insurance policy to Suzanne M. Murphy, James's mother, which was in effect at the time of the accident. Safety's policy provides underinsured motorist coverage limits of $250,000 per person, and $500,000 per accident. The Safety policy obligates it to pay damages to, or for, any household member injured while occupying the insured vehicle. James was a passenger in the insured vehicle at the time of the accident and qualified as a covered household member under Safety's policy.
The Safety policy reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
The Safety policy also provides that Safety "will pay any unpaid damages up to the difference between the total amount collected from the automobile bodily injury liability insurance covering the owner and operator of the responsible auto and the 'per person' limit shown for this Part on your Coverage Selections Page."
The parties could not agree on whether the limits of Bisol's personal excess liability policy should be included in deciding James's entitlement to underinsurance benefits under Safety's policy. The plaintiff brought this action on James's behalf in the Superior Court seeking declarations, pursuant to G.L. c. 231A, that the limits of Bisol's personal excess liability policy should not be included in determining Safety's obligations and that James was entitled to underinsurance benefits under Safety's policy. Safety filed an answer and brought a third-party complaint against James's parents seeking a declaration that Bisol was not underinsured because the limits of his automobile liability insurance policy and his personal excess liability policy, when added together, exceeded the limits of liability of underinsured benefits in Safety's policy. 3 On cross motions for summary judgment, the judge concluded that the plaintiff's position was correct; that Bisol's vehicle was underinsured; and that James was entitled to a payment under Safety's policy of $150,000 with interest. 4 The judge subsequently vacated the judgment which incorporated these rulings, and he ordered the entry of a corrected judgment which made the principal declaration as to the effect of Bisol's personal excess liability policy, but left unspecified the amount of underinsurance benefits to be paid by Safety. Both Safety and the plaintiff appealed from the corrected judgment. 5
1. Safety's policy is governed by the provisions of G.L. c. 175, § 113L (2), which states that underinsurance benefits are to be paid only when the "bodily injury liability bond amount or policy limit [of the tortfeasor] is less than the policy limit for underinsured motor vehicle coverage." With respect to this statutory provision, and a similar Safety policy, we said the following in Alguila v. Safety Ins. Co., 416 Mass. 494, 496-497, 624 N.E.2d 79 (1993):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Geico v. Npic
...in any of them. ¶ 16 GEICO relies on four opinions that interpreted either Connecticut, Rhode Island or Pennsylvania law: Murphy v. Safety Ins. Co., 429 Mass. 517, 709 N.E.2d 410, (1999); Schilling v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2002 WL 522982 (Conn.2002); Pennsylvania General Ins. Co. v. Morris, 599 ......
-
Geico General Insurance Co. v. Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Co., 2005 OK 40 (OK 6/14/2005), 100731
...¶16 GEICO relies on four opinions that interpreted either Connecticut, Rhode Island or Pennsylvania law: Murphy v. Safety Ins. Co., 709 N.E. 2d 410, (Mass. 1999); Schilling v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2002 WL 522982 (Conn. 2002); Pennsylvania General Ins. Co. v. Morris, 599 A.2d 1042 (R.I. 1991); a......
-
Cecere v. Aetna Ins. Co.
...made uninsured motorist coverage optional to "lower the cost of automobile insurance premiums." Murphy v. Safety Ins. Co., 429 Mass. 517, 709 N.E.2d 410, 413 n. 7 (1999).Massachusetts is the principal location of the risk, however, and its uninsured motorist statute controls. The policy's u......
-
Wallace v. Twin Pines Constr., Inc.
...are included in the UM analysis. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sayles, 289 F.3d 181, 187 (2d Cir. 2002); Murphy v. Safety Ins. Co., 709 N.E.2d 410, 412-13 (Mass. 1999); Pa. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Morris, 599 A.2d 1042, 1044 (R.I. 1991); Schilling v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2002 Conn. Super. LEX......