Deutsche Bank National Association v. First American Title Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-124-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 SJC‑11265 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,[1] trustee,[2] vs. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY. Suffolk. March 7, 2013. ‑ July 11, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Insurance, Title insurance, Insurer’s obligation to defend. Real Property, Title insurance. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 11, 2009. The case was heard by S. Jane Haggerty, J., on motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Richard E. Briansky (Jeffrey J. Pyle with him) for the plaintiff. Jason A. Manekas for the defendant. CORDY, J. In the present appeal, we consider whether the terms of a title insurance policy require First American Title Insurance Company (First American) to defend Deutsche Bank National Association (Deutsche Bank) in a lawsuit brought by a third party, Karla Brown,[3] seeking rescission of a note and first mortgage securing that note, originated by Deutsche Bank’s predecessor in interest in connection with the purchase of Brown’s home. Following First American’s denial of coverage, Deutsche Bank instituted this action seeking a judgment declaring that First American has a duty to defend it in Brown’s lawsuit and seeking statutory damages. We transferred the case here on our own motion following Deutsche Bank’s appeal from a Superior Court judge’s order granting summary judgment in favor of First American. On appeal, Deutsche Bank argues that the policy is susceptible to an interpretation that it covers the claims alleged in Brown’s complaint and that two exclusions contained within the policy do not preclude coverage.[4] Based on these arguments, Deutsche Bank contends that First American is under a contractual duty to defend it in the Brown lawsuit. In addition, Deutsche Bank renews its claim for damages under G. L. c. 93A due to First American’s alleged violation of G. L. c. 176D, § 3.[5] In response, First American argues that the allegations in Brown’s complaint do not trigger its duty to defend because they relate to a predatory lending scheme concerning the validity of the underlying note and not the enforceability of Deutsche Bank’s mortgage interest. Alternatively, First American argues that it need not defend Deutsche Bank because Brown’s claims are excluded by the policy. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the allegations in […]
Boston Police Donate Blood to American Red Cross at HQ
Some of the Boston Police Department’s strongest lined up and waited to donate blood to the American Red Cross on Monday. The Red Cross set up donation areas for officers from all sworn-in officers in any unit around the city. While many cops are happy to donate blood, they also get an extra incentive with the ability to take a half-day off at a later date, thanks to a special order from the city’s police commissioner. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch
Mahoney v. American Automobile Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-070-13)
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 12‑P‑163 Appeals Court WAYNE MAHONEY vs. AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 12‑P‑163. Plymouth. October 4, 2012. ‑ June 3, 2013. Present: Grasso, Fecteau, & Agnes, JJ. Motor Vehicle, Insurance, Entrustment. Insurance, Motor vehicle insurance, Coverage, Insurer’s obligation to defend. Indemnity. Contract, Insurance, Indemnity. Negligence, Motor vehicle, Entrustment. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 11, 2010. The case was heard by Richard J. Chin, J., on motions for summary judgment. Merril S. Biscone, of New York (Pamela S. Gilman with her) for the defendant. J. Michael Conley for the plaintiff. FECTEAU, J. On appeal from the allowance of the defendant American Automobile Insurance Company’s (AAIC) motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff, Wayne Mahoney, contends that a judge in the Superior Court erred in interpreting Part 5, the “Optional Bodily Injury to Others” provision (Part 5) of a standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy (seventh edition). Mahoney’s complaint sought a declaration that AAIC is contractually obligated to indemnify Jennifer Hill, a household member of its insureds, Thomas and Sandra Joyce (the Joyces), in connection with a motor vehicle accident in which Mahoney’s vehicle was struck by a vehicle rented by Hill and operated by Ellen Teague, to whom Hill had negligently entrusted it. Acting on cross motions for summary judgment, the judge concluded that AAIC had no contractual obligation to indemnify Hill, because the plain language of Part 5 unambiguously provides that “this Part does not pay for the benefit of anyone using an auto without the consent of the owner.” Relying on the reasoning in Vergato v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 50 Mass. App. Ct. 824 (2001) (Vergato), the judge determined that Part 5 did not provide coverage to Hill because at the time of the accident, Teague was not operating the rental vehicle with the consent of the rental company, Hertz Rental Corporation (Hertz). We agree with the judge’s interpretation and affirm the judgment. Background. The essential facts are not in dispute. On March 17, 2007, Teague, who was not licensed, was driving a car that Hill had rented from Hertz when Teague negligently crossed the center line and struck Mahoney’s vehicle, seriously injuring him. In renting the car from Hertz, Hill listed only herself as an operator, and only Hill was […]
Thousands of American Flags Planted on Common
You may have noticed a very patriotic sight in Boston Common starting Wednesday afternoon: thousands of small American flags planted not far from the intersection of Beacon and Charles Street. The flags were planted by volunteers with the Massachusetts Military Heroes Fund at the Soldiers and Sailors Monument. According to their website, the volunteers planned to plant 33,000 flags this year for each military service member from the Bay State who has given their lives in service to America since the Civil War. On Thursday, Gov. Deval Patrick will honor those lost in a ceremony at the site at 10 a.m. The ceremony will include the reading of names of those who have died during Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle by their families. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch
American Red Cross Launches New ‘Boston Strong’ Page
The American Red Cross launched a new website one month after the bombings dedicated to helping those affected by the bombings recovery fully. The Red Cross has been involved in the Boston Marathon for decades, usually providing physical relief and care to runners. “Never could I have imagined we’d be talking about a response to the Boston Marathon that included taking a central role in Disaster Mental Health, aid to the families of the injured and deceased, and a role in helping our community heal,” said Jarrett Barrios, CEO, American Red Cross of Eastern Massachusetts. “But that’s where the volunteers I work with were needed after the Boston Marathon Bombing, and where we stay, offering assistance.” The new web page includes tips for coping through a crisis, supporting the community and offering emotional comfort, public thank-yous to those who have helped the relief effort, and more. You can find the new webpage at redcross.org/bostonstrong. Do you feel like you’ve recovered emotionally from the attack on the marathon? Are you happy to see these tips for others in the community? Tell us in the comments. South End Patch
GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-056-13)
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 SJC‑11161 GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC vs. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY. December 4, 2012. ‑ April 4, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Insurance, Title insurance, Coverage, Insurer’s obligation to defend. Real Property, Title insurance. Contract, Insurance. Mortgage, Insurance of mortgagee’s interest. Land Court, Jurisdiction. Practice, Civil, Complaint, Transfer of action to Superior Court, Removal of case to federal court. Supreme Judicial Court, Certification of questions of law. Certification of questions of law to the Supreme Judicial Court by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Richard E. Briansky for the plaintiff. Jason A. Manekas for the defendant. SPINA, J. This case involves multiple litigations among three parties — First American Title Insurance Company (First American), the insurer; GMAC Mortgage, LLC (GMAC), the insured mortgagee; and Elizabeth Moore (Mrs. Moore), the homeowner — arising out of a defect in the title to Mrs. Moore’s home. First American brought suit on behalf of GMAC in the Land Court, seeking to reform the deed to Mrs. Moore’s property or to equitably subrogate her interest in the property behind GMAC’s mortgage. Because of the Land Court’s jurisdictional restrictions, Mrs. Moore then initiated suit in the Superior Court against GMAC, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of G. L. c. 93A for GMAC’s unfair and deceptive conduct in pursuing foreclosure, and “money had and received” for mortgage payments alleged to have been made to GMAC in error. Because the two actions were closely related, the Chief Justice for Administration and Management ordered, pursuant to his power under G. L. c. 211B, § 9 (xix), that the Land Court action be transferred to the Superior Court and consolidated with Mrs. Moore’s action. However, after the order of transfer, but before the Land Court action was docketed in the Superior Court, counsel for GMAC removed Mrs. Moore’s litigation to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Therefore, the Land Court action never formally was consolidated with Mrs. Moore’s action in the Superior Court. However, GMAC raised counterclaims in Mrs. Moore’s action, now in the United States District Court, that duplicated the reformation and equitable subrogation claims asserted in the Land Court, and an attorney for First American appeared on behalf of GMAC in […]