Peerless Ins. Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 92-P-519
| Decision Date | 25 May 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-P-519,92-P-519 |
| Parties | PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Robert H. Flynn, Andrew J. Fay, Boston, with him, for plaintiff.
Joseph J. Walsh, Myles W. McDonough, Boston, with him, for defendant.
Before BROWN, KASS and LAURENCE, JJ.
As presented in a report under Mass.R.Civ.P. 64, 365 Mass. 831 (1974), the question of law to be decided in this dispute about coverage between two insurance companies is whether, on the facts presented, the workers' compensation insurer (Hartford) was absolved of defense and compensation responsibility by reason of the language contained in exclusion (f) of the workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance policy. We are at a loss to understand why exclusion (f), the text of which we set forth in the margin, 1 is or even pertinent to resolution of the case, and the perplexed state in which the presentation of the case leaves us illustrates the unwisdom of premature reports of disembodied questions of law. The record does not contain either of the two categories of prerequisites for a report under rule 64: 1) an agreement of the parties as to "all the material facts" for decision of their dispute; 2 or 2) a finding or order by the judge thought by him so to affect the merits of the controversy that there is no point in proceeding in the trial court until the validity of the finding or order is passed upon. See Heck v. Commonwealth, 397 Mass. 336, 338-339, 491 N.E.2d 613 (1986); Shabshelowitz v. Fall River Gas. Co., 412 Mass. 259, 260-262, 588 N.E.2d 630 (1992); Cusic v. Commonwealth, 412 Mass. 291, 293-294, 588 N.E.2d 665 (1992); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy. Retirement Bd., 412 Mass. 770, 772-773, 592 N.E.2d 1325 (1992); Transamerica Ins. Group v. Turner Constr. Co., 33 Mass.App.Ct. 446, 447-448 n. 2, 601 N.E.2d 473 (1992). The report should be discharged as improvidently made.
As the case has once proceeded on an apparently mistaken track, we state, for such assistance as they may afford on remand, our views on the basis of the record as it has thus far been developed.
John Doyon fell to his death on September 26, 1982, when moveable staging from which he and another man had been washing windows broke loose. The administrator of his estate brought a wrongful death action against Steven F. Lewis, whose company, Eastern Waterproofing Co., was doing a waterproofing job on a building at 12 Kilsyth Terrace in Boston, and against the owners of that building. Lewis carried workers' compensation insurance and employer's liability insurance with the Hartford Insurance Company ("Hartford") and general liability insurance with Peerless Insurance Company. In his complaint, the administrator assiduously avoided mentioning that Doyon was an employee of Lewis, i.e., the complaint alleged simply that the defendant Lewis and the defendant Terrace Properties, Inc., had each negligently maintained equipment or property in an unsafe condition, thus contributing to Doyon's fatal accident while he was lawfully on the premises. Presumably the administrator of Doyon's estate eschewed workers' compensation remedies because in the case of a death of a worker with only partial dependents the amount recoverable would have been limited to $17,000. See G.L. c. 152 § 31, as appearing in St.1974, c. 438, § 1. 3
Under Sterilite Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 316, 318 (1983), an insurer has a duty to defend if the allegations of the complaint, reasonably read, appear to state a claim covered by the terms of the insurance policy. Read literally, the Doyon estate's complaint did not implicate coverage A, workers' compensation, or coverage B, 4 employer liability, of the Hartford policy, but surely a wholly literal reading of the complaint was not reasonable. An insurer reading the complaint was at least bound to inquire why Doyon was on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smartfoods, Inc. v. Northbrook Property and Cas. Co., 92-P-897
...Michaud Bus Lines, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 21 Mass.App.Ct. 60, 62-63, 484 N.E.2d 644 (1985); Peerless Ins. Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 34 Mass.App.Ct. 534, 536, 613 N.E.2d 125 (1993). Guided by those principles, we turn to the lead distributor's complaint, that of Utt Distributing Co., ......
-
HDH Corp. v. Atlantic Charter Ins. Co.
...also does not limit the workers' compensation insurer's duty to defend as Atlantic would suggest. In Peerless Ins. Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 34 Mass.App.Ct. 534, 536, 613 N.E.2d 125 (1993), the underlying claim was a wrongful death action against the employer, but the complaint "assiduously......
-
Peerless Ins Co. v. Hatford Ins. Co.
...by: Armstrong, J. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on August 17, 1987. Following review by this court, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 534 (1993), motions for summary judgment were heard by Carol Stroud Ball, The present action arises out of a previous wrongful death suit brought b......
-
Peerless Ins. Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co.
...Wrongful Death. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on August 17, 1987. Following review by this court, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 534 (1993), motions for summary were heard by Carol Stroud Ball, J. Andrew J. Fay for the plaintiff. Myles W. McDonough for the defendant. Argued May......