Thattil v. Dominican Sisters of Charity of Presentation of Blessed Virgin, Inc.

• Decision Date: 03 June 1993
• Citation: 415 Mass. 381,613 N.E.2d 908
• Parties: Sister Mary THATTIL v. DOMINICAN SISTERS OF CHARITY OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN, INC., et al. 1 (And a companion case 2 ). Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 908

613 N.E.2d 908

415 Mass. 381

Sister Mary THATTIL v. DOMINICAN SISTERS OF CHARITY OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN, INC., et al. ¹ (And a companion case ²) Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Norfolk.

Argued March 2, 1993.

Decided June 3, 1993.

John P. Graceffa, Boston, for Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.

John C. Corrigan, Jr., Boston (Frederic J. Torphy, Fall River, with him), for Dominican Sisters of Charity of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin, Inc.

Roger J. Donahue, Jr., Boston, for plaintiff, was present but did not argue.

Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS, NOLAN, LYNCH, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.

LYNCH, Justice.

These are consolidated actions for declaratory judgment as to whether the underinsurance coverage of $500,000 per person issued to the Dominican Sisters of Charity of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin, Inc. (Dominican Sisters), by Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (Aetna) is available to Sister Mary Thattil (Sister Thattil), a member of the Dominican Sisters. Sister Thattil was struck by a vehicle operated by an underinsured motorist while walking near the Dominican Sisters' provincial house in December of 1988 and filed a claim to recover under the underinsured motorists provision of the Dominican Sisters' policy. Aetna denied the claim, maintaining that Sister Thattil was not an "insured" under the policy, and Sister Thattil initiated this suit seeking a declaratory judgment that she is entitled to recover under the Dominican Sisters' policy. Aetna counterclaimed for declaratory judgment on the same issue and subsequently moved for summary judgment. ³ A judge in the Superior Court denied Aetna's motion, and ordered that summary judgment be entered in favor of Sister Thattil. A separate and final judgment was entered to that effect, which a second judge certified pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 54(b), 365 Mass. 820 (1974). Aetna appealed. We transferred the case here on our own motion, and we now affirm.

The relevant facts are not in dispute. Sister Thattil is, and was at all times material to this case, a member of the Dominican Sisters, a nonprofit religious corporation incorporated under G.L. c. 180 (1990 ed.). The Dominican Sisters is a religious order within the Roman Catholic Church, established and existing according to the mandate of canon law.

Pursuant to canon law, the Dominican Sisters is regulated internally by its "Constitutions" which provide that each of the Sisters "renounce[s] the right to the disposition and to the free use of material goods." Constitutions, Dominican Sisters of Charity of the Presentation of Our Lady § 23 at 33 (1981). Further, the Constitutions command, "Everything that the sisters may receive: salaries, indemnities, pensions, gifts, belongs to the community and must be remitted." Id. at § 24-02. Canon law and the Constitutions dictate that the personal and real estate of the Order be administered and safeguarded according to "civilly valid methods." Codex Iuris Canonici, 1983 Code c. 1284, § 2(2). Constitutions, Dominican Sisters of Charity of the Presentation of Our Lady § 243, at 105.

On December 20, 1988, Sister Thattil was struck by a motor vehicle while walking near the Dominican Sisters' residence. As a result of the accident, Sister Thattil sustained serious injuries and will be confined to a wheelchair for the remainder of her life. At the time of the accident, the operator of the motor vehicle was covered by a motor vehicle insurance policy issued by Commerce Insurance Company (Commerce), with applicable policy limits of $100,000. Commerce paid the $100,000 limit of the policy to Sister Thattil. This amount, however, was not enough to pay her medical expenses, which had reached $240,000 at the time she commenced this action.

The Aetna policy lists the named insured as "Dominican Sisters of Charity Presentation Inc. and/or Dominican Sisters of Charity of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin, Inc.," and states the occupation of the named insured as "religious order." The policy contains underinsured motorists protection in the amount of $500,000 per person and $500,000 per accident.

The Dominican Sisters had purchased automobile coverage from Aetna, through its agent, The Feitelberg Company, for several years. The policy issued to the Dominican Sisters for the period January 1, 1987, to January 1, 1988, included underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. In August of 1987, The Feitelberg Company wrote to Sister Vimala Vadakumpadan, the treasurer for the Dominican Sisters and urged her to increase the underinsured motorist coverage to the full amount of the bodily injury liability coverage listed in the Dominican Sisters' policy, at an additional cost of $176. This solicitation stated that the Dominican Sisters "must purchase [underinsured motorist coverage] to protect yourself from the large percentage of improperly insured drivers.... We have experienced several major claims in the past year that have dramatized the critical needs here" (emphasis in original). ⁴ Sister Vimala accepted the solicitation and paid the additional premium of $176. As a result, the underinsured motorist coverage was increased to $500,000 per person and $500,000 per accident for the policy covering the period of January 1, 1988 to January 1, 1989. The agent, Joseph H. Feitelberg, testified in his deposition that he understood the relationship among the Dominican Sisters better than Aetna, and that, in his personal view, the policy issued provided Sister Thattil with underinsured motorist coverage in these circumstances. ⁵

Sister Vimala stated in an affidavit that before Sister Thattil's accident Aetna sent a representative, William G. Benn, to conduct a survey regarding the use and maintenance of the automobiles used by the Sisters and insured by Aetna. During this survey, she maintains that Benn was told that the insured automobiles are not used for the personal benefit of individual Sisters since what the Sisters do is for the Order.

A motion for summary judgment is proper where no material facts are in dispute. Miles v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 412 Mass. 424, 426, 589 N.E.2d 314 (1992). Where appropriate, summary judgment may be rendered against the moving party. Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c), 365 Mass. 824 (1974). ⁶ The Superior Court judge held that, pursuant to the intended legislative policy of G.L. c. 175, § 113L, as amended through St.1980, c. 532, Sister Thattil qualified as a named insured under the policy. ⁷ We agree.

The Aetna policy's underinsured motorist provision reads as follows:

"The Company will pay such sums as the insured or his legal representative shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an ... underinsured automobile because of bodily injury ... sustained by the insured, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such ... underinsured automobile...."

The Aetna policy defines "Insured" as follows: "(1) The Named Insured as stated in Item 1 of the declarations ... and, while residents of the same household, the spouse of any such Named Insured and relatives of either;

(2) any other person while occupying an insured automobile; and

(3) any person, with respect to damages he is entitled to recover because of bodily injury to which this coverage applies sustained by an insured under (1) or (2) above." ⁸

Categories (2) and (3) of the definition do not apply. Under category (1), Sister Thattil is also not a "spouse" or "relative" of the insured. In deciding whether she still falls within category (1), we construe the words of the policy according to the fair meaning of the language used, as applied to the subject matter. Johnson v. Hanover Ins. Co., 400 Mass. 259, 266, 508 N.E.2d 845 (1987). Bilodeau v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 392 Mass. 537, 541, 467 N.E.2d 137 (1984). ⁹ No matter how explicit the language may be, it cannot prevail if it is contrary to the statutory language or the legislative policy of G.L. c. 175, § 113L. Cardin v. Royal Ins. Co., 394 Mass. 450, 453, 476 N.E.2d 200 (1985).

At the time the Aetna policy was issued to the Dominican Sisters, both underinsured and uninsured motorist coverages were mandatory pursuant to G.L. c. 175, § 113L. ¹⁰ Vaiarella v. Hanover Ins. Co., 409 Mass. 523, 525, 567 N.E.2d 916 (1991). Both coverages worked to further the legislative policies inherent in the version of G.L. c. 175, § 113L, effective at that time. Id. at 525-526, 567 N.E.2d 916. Cardin v. Royal Ins. Co., supra 394 Mass. at 454, 476 N.E.2d 200.

General Laws c. 175, § 113L, was enacted to protect the public from injury caused by negligent and financially irresponsible motorists. Johnson v. Hanover Ins. Co., supra 400 Mass. at 263, 508 N.E.2d 845. See Cardin v. Royal Ins. Co., supra 394 Mass. at 454, 476 N.E.2d 200, quoting 1968 Senate Doc. No. 1030, at 7 (aim of G.L. c. 175, § 113L, is "to minimize the possibility of ... catastrophic financial loss [to] the victims of an automobile accident"). The statute was intended to protect the named insured and all household members "in the event of death or injury caused by the negligence of an uninsured motorist, whether such accident victims are occupants of a motor vehicle or pedestrians." ¹¹ Johnson v. Hanover Ins. Co., supra at 263, 508 N.E.2d 845, quoting 1968 Senate Doc. No. 1030, at 6-7. The only limits on this coverage which the statute comprehended were that the insured be legally entitled to recover damages, that the tortfeasor be uninsured or underinsured, and that payment not exceed the monetary limit of the insured's policy. Cardin v. Royal Ins. Co., supra 394 Mass. at 455, 476 N.E.2d 200. ¹²

Were we to interpret this policy strictly as Aetna contends, Sister Thattil could receive underinsurance motorist coverage only if she were occupying a vehicle insured by the Dominican Sisters at the time of the loss. She could...