Will Realty Corp. v. Transportation Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1986 |
| Citation | 22 Mass.App.Ct. 918,492 N.E.2d 372 |
| Parties | WILL REALTY CORPORATION v. TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Stephen M. Perry, Boston, for defendant.
Michael N. Abodeely, Jr. (James Horan, Worcester, with him), for plaintiff.
Before BROWN, KAPLAN and PERRETTA, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
A policy of the defendant, Transportation Insurance Company, insured generally against fire (and certain other casualties) a three-decker tenement in Worcester owned by the plaintiff, Will Realty Corporation. By the terms of the policy coverage was denied where fire occurred when the property was "vacant," having been so for more than sixty consecutive days; however, this provision did not apply to "buildings in due course of construction." 1
In the present nonjury action on the policy, a judge of the Superior Court made findings of fact which are in essence uncontroverted. The last tenant in this rundown house, having been ordered evicted, departed in late November or early December, 1981. Boarding up of the windows, which had begun earlier, was then completed to protect against rock throwing by neighborhood children. There was no change until the second week in February, 1982. On two days workmen entered the house, detached various salvageable items, and carried them to a warehouse in Auburn. These items consisted of windows, doors, kitchen sinks, and bathroom vanities. Apart from dislodging putty and glass from the windows, no work was done on the items after they reached Auburn. On March 20, 1982, the house was destroyed by fire. The plaintiff had contemplated "rehabbing" the premises, which would have included as an incident reinstalling the warehoused items, but except as stated it had taken no steps in that direction by the time of the fire.
The judge said that the words "vacant" and "in due course of construction" were ambiguous, and he then concluded on the facts that the property had not been "vacant" for the specified period, but that, in any event, it was "in due course of construction." The judge erred.
In the degree that a word is considered apart from its context, it becomes "ambiguous," and if one then invokes doctrines such as that interpretation goes against the party who prepared the document, one can reach odd results. Here the judge evidently read "vacant" in some abstract way and may have thought the appearance of the workmen sufficiently interrupted the sixty days and thereby rendered the premises nonvacant within the meaning of the policy. However, the plaintiff had admitted the opposite in its pleadings, and on appeal to this court makes no attempt to support the judge's ruling on the point. The policy provision reflects the commonplace observation that the risk of casualty is higher when premises remain unattended. "Vacant" is to be read in that light, and the plaintiff evidently agrees that premises may be vacant despite sporadic entry. See Dunton v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co., 371 F.2d 329, 331 (7th Cir.1967); Ekelchik v. American Cas. Co., 56 N.J.Super. 171, 177, 152 A.2d 156 (1959). Cf. McKinney v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 144 W.Va. 559, 571, 109 S.E.2d 480 (1959).
"Buildings in due course of construction" is to be read in the same light. If, as applied to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christie's Cabaret of Glendale LLC v. United Nat'l Ins. Co.
...‘substantial continuing activities [occur] on, rather than off, the property,’ " id. at *3 (quoting Will Realty Corp. v. Transp. Ins. Co. , 22 Mass.App.Ct. 918, 492 N.E.2d 372, 373 (1986) ), and holds that " ‘sporadic entry’ is insufficient for a finding that substantial continuing activiti......
-
Estes v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
...420; see also Hix, 1998 WL 395065, at *1-2 (house was vacant despite owner's remodeling efforts); Will Realty Corp. v. Transportation Ins. Co., 22 Mass.App.Ct. 918, 492 N.E.2d 372, 373 (1986) (premises may be vacant despite sporadic entry by workers). Finally, the Court notes that both plai......
-
Glasser v. M&o Agencies, Inc.
...nothing to indicate that it was occupied or being used for its normal purpose - industrial storage); Will Realty Corp. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 492 N.E.2d 372, 373 (Mass. App. 1986) (ruling exception to vacancy exclusion for "buildings in due course of construction" could only be applied to sub......
-
Trb Investments v. Fireman's Fund Ins.
...activities" by persons associated with the project at the premises during the relevant time period. (Will Realty Corp. v. Transp. Ins. Co. (1986) 22 Mass.App.Ct. 918, 492 N.E.2d 372, 373; see also Vennemann v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co. (8th Cir. 2003) 334 F.3d 772, 774.) Under that test, "sporad......