Posts tagged "1102217"

Ramirez v. Commerce Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-022-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   16-P-59                                         Appeals Court   WRBASY RAMIREZ[1]  vs.  COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY.     No. 16-P-59.   Suffolk.     November 7, 2016. – March 7, 2017.   Present:  Cypher, Massing, & Sacks, JJ.     Motor Vehicle, Insurance.  Insurance, Motor vehicle insurance, Replacement, Construction of policy.  Contract, Insurance, Construction of contract.  Evidence, Replacement cost.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 21, 2014.   The case was heard by Janet L. Sanders, J., on motions for summary judgment.     Thomas G. Shapiro for the plaintiff. Nelson G. Apjohn (Eric P. Magnuson also present) for the defendant. Michael Sloman, for Automobile Insurers Bureau, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.     CYPHER, J.  The plaintiff, Wrbasy Ramirez, appeals from a Superior Court judgment entered on a motion for summary judgment filed by Commerce Insurance Company (Commerce).  The plaintiff argues that under the standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy, Commerce must pay, as damages on his third-party claim for the total loss of his automobile, not only the actual cash value of a replacement vehicle, but also the applicable sales tax — even where he has not purchased a replacement vehicle and incurred the sales tax.  We affirm.[2] Background.  The following undisputed facts are taken from the summary judgment record.  In January, 2014, the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision in Danvers with a vehicle driven by Edith McGuinness.  Commerce insured McGuiness through a 2008 edition of the standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy (the policy), which contains language approved by the Commissioner of Insurance. The policy included benefits for third-party property damage claims where Commerce determined that its insured was legally responsible for the collision.  Specifically, part 4 of the policy provided:  “[W]e will pay damages to someone else whose auto or other property is damaged in an accident.  The damages we will pay are the amounts that person is legally entitled to collect for property damage through a court judgment or settlement. . . .  Damages include any applicable sales tax and the costs resulting from loss of use of the damaged property.” Under the policy and the regulations at issue here, damages are calculated as follows:  “Whenever the appraised cost of repair plus the probable salvage value may be reasonably expected to exceed the actual cash value of the vehicle, the insurer shall determine the vehicle’s actual cash value.”  […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 8, 2017 at 12:07 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Ramirez v. Commerce Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-022-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   16-P-59                                         Appeals Court   WRBASY RAMIREZ[1]  vs.  COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY.     No. 16-P-59.   Suffolk.     November 7, 2016. – March 7, 2017.   Present:  Cypher, Massing, & Sacks, JJ.     Motor Vehicle, Insurance.  Insurance, Motor vehicle insurance, Replacement, Construction of policy.  Contract, Insurance, Construction of contract.  Evidence, Replacement cost.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 21, 2014.   The case was heard by Janet L. Sanders, J., on motions for summary judgment.     Thomas G. Shapiro for the plaintiff. Nelson G. Apjohn (Eric P. Magnuson also present) for the defendant. Michael Sloman, for Automobile Insurers Bureau, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.     CYPHER, J.  The plaintiff, Wrbasy Ramirez, appeals from a Superior Court judgment entered on a motion for summary judgment filed by Commerce Insurance Company (Commerce).  The plaintiff argues that under the standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy, Commerce must pay, as damages on his third-party claim for the total loss of his automobile, not only the actual cash value of a replacement vehicle, but also the applicable sales tax — even where he has not purchased a replacement vehicle and incurred the sales tax.  We affirm.[2] Background.  The following undisputed facts are taken from the summary judgment record.  In January, 2014, the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision in Danvers with a vehicle driven by Edith McGuinness.  Commerce insured McGuiness through a 2008 edition of the standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy (the policy), which contains language approved by the Commissioner of Insurance. The policy included benefits for third-party property damage claims where Commerce determined that its insured was legally responsible for the collision.  Specifically, part 4 of the policy provided:  “[W]e will pay damages to someone else whose auto or other property is damaged in an accident.  The damages we will pay are the amounts that person is legally entitled to collect for property damage through a court judgment or settlement. . . .  Damages include any applicable sales tax and the costs resulting from loss of use of the damaged property.” Under the policy and the regulations at issue here, damages are calculated as follows:  “Whenever the appraised cost of repair plus the probable salvage value may be reasonably expected to exceed the actual cash value of the vehicle, the insurer shall determine the vehicle’s actual cash value.”  […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 7, 2017 at 8:31 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,