Noyes v. Quincy Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

• Citation: 7 Mass.App.Ct. 723,389 N.E.2d 1046
• Parties: William NOYES et al. v. QUINCY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.
• Decision Date: 07 June 1979
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 1046

389 N.E.2d 1046

7 Mass.App.Ct. 723

William NOYES et al. v. QUINCY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

Argued May 10, 1979.

Decided June 7, 1979.

David G. Galkin, Boston, for plaintiffs.

Robert L. Athas, Boston, for defendant.

Before HALE, C. J., and BROWN and GREANEY, JJ.

HALE, Chief Justice.

The plaintiffs, William and Marie E. Noyes, brought this action against their insurer, Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Quincy), seeking (1) payment of a property damage claim under the provisions of a homeowner's insurance policy issued by Quincy and (2) treble damages and attorney's fees pursuant to G.L. c. 93A for alleged unfair and deceptive acts as set forth in G.L. c. 176D. ¹ After a hearing on a motion for summary judgment brought by Quincy under Mass.R.Civ.P. 56, 365 Mass. 824 (1974), the judge granted summary judgment in the amount of $779 for the plaintiffs on the first cause of action, and a separate such judgment for Quincy on the second cause of action, dismissing the plaintiffs' action with regard to the relief sought under Chapters 93A and 176D. It is from the latter judgment only that the present appeal is brought.

The following facts were alleged by the plaintiffs in their complaint. On February 13, 1977, the gasoline line of a motor vehicle parked in the plaintiffs' driveway broke, causing spillage and property damage in the amount of $779. The driveway was part of certain premises insured by Quincy under a homeowner's insurance policy. Upon Quincy's denial of coverage under the policy and its refusal to pay their claim, the plaintiffs complained to the Commissioner of Insurance. On August 26, 1977, one Fanikos, counsel to the Division of Insurance, rendered an opinion that the provisions of the policy covered the gasoline spill loss and that the claim should be paid. Fanikos suggested that the plaintiffs take legal action to secure payment since his "(d)epartment (did) not have the authority to issue a legal binding decision on this matter." On September 8, 1977, a thirty-day demand letter was sent to Quincy on behalf of the plaintiffs pursuant to G.L. c. 93A. Quincy made no offer of settlement in response to the demand.

Quincy's motion for summary judgment, unsupported by an affidavit, was brought on the ground that the pleadings ² "show that there is no genuine issue of material fact" and that Quincy "is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The plaintiffs filed an affidavit sworn to by Fanikos in opposition to Quincy's motion. Fanikos described the informal hearing held at the Division of Insurance wherein Quincy asserted its reasons for refusal to pay the plaintiffs' claim. ³ Quincy argued before Fanikos that the claim came within a "Contamination Excluded Peril" provision of the policy. Fanikos told Quincy that he did not consider the plaintiffs' loss to come within the common expectations of the contamination exclusion and advised the insurer to pay the claim. By granting summary judgment in the plaintiffs' first cause of action, the judge apparently had little difficulty concluding, as did counsel for the Division of Insurance, that the claim was covered by the plaintiffs' policy and that Quincy had improperly denied coverage of the loss, thereby rejecting the argument that the loss came within the contamination exclusion. Quincy, not having appealed, is bound by that determination.

A cause of action sounding in G.L. c. 93A is an appropriate matter for summary judgment under rule 56 only if there is no genuine issue of material fact. Lowell Gas Co. v. Attorney Gen., --- Mass. ---, --- n.1 ^A, 385 N.E.2d 240 n.1 (1979). Don Lorenz, Inc. v. Northampton Natl. Bank, 6 Mass.App. --- ^B, 381 N.E.2d 1108 (1978). Summary judgment is a "device to make possible the prompt disposition of controversies on their merits without a trial, if in essence there is no real dispute as to the salient facts or if only a question of law is involved." Community Natl. Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass. 550, 553, 340 N.E.2d 877, 879 (1976), quoting from 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1231, at 96 (Wright rev. ed. 1958). If the moving party by his supporting materials satisfies the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled, as matter of law, to a judgment (Community Natl. Bank v. Dawes,supra at 554, 340 N.E.2d 877; John B. Deary, Inc. v. Crane, 4 Mass.App. 719, ---, 358 N.E.2d 456 (1976)), the opposing party may not rest on his pleadings, but must allege specific facts which establish a triable issue in order to avoid entry of a summary judgment. Commonwealth Bank & Trust Co. v. Plotkin, 371 Mass. 218, --- - ---, 355 N.E.2d 917 (1976). Turner v. McCune, 4 Mass.App. 864, 357 N.E.2d 942 (1976). "(G) ranting summary judgment is error when the party opposing the motion has alleged facts relating to the transaction on which suit has been brought which raise issues entitling him to a trial. See McMahon v. M & D Builders, Inc., 360 Mass. 54, 57-58, 271 N.E.2d 649 (1971)." Community Natl. Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass. at 556, 340 N.E.2d at 880. Stetson v. Board of Selectmen of Carlisle, 369 Mass. 755, 763-764, 343 N.E.2d 382 (1976). The duty of the trial judge is not to conduct a "trial by affidavits" (or other supporting materials), but to "determine whether there is a substantial issue of fact." Norwood Morris Plan Co. v. McCarthy, 295 Mass. 597, 603, 4 N.E.2d 450, 454 (1936).

Whether a given practice is unfair or deceptive under G.L. c. 93A must be determined from the circumstances of each case. Commonwealth v. DeCotis,366 Mass. 234, 242, 316 N.E.2d 748 (1974). Schubach v. Household Fin. Corp., --- Mass. ---, --- ^C, 376 N.E.2d 140 (1978). See generally Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. Kotses, --- Mass. ---, --- ^D, 390 N.E.2d 243 (1979). Resolution of the basic dispute under the circumstances of this case depends upon a factual determination of Quincy's knowledge and intent. General Laws c. 176D, § 3(9)(f) (inserted by St.1972, c. 543, § 1), provides that it is an unfair claim settlement practice for an insurer to fail "to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear." General Laws c. 93A, § 2(A ) (inserted by St.1967, c. 813, § 1) covers such insurance practices in its prohibition of "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the...