Great Divide Insurance Company v. Lexington Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-172-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 SJC-12164 GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY. Suffolk. March 6, 2017. – November 1, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.[1] Motor Vehicle, Insurance. Insurance, Motor vehicle insurance, Excess liability insurance. Certification of a question of law to the Supreme Judicial Court by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Adam R. Doherty (Thomas M. Elcock also present) for the plaintiff. Kimberly A. Hartman, of Illinois, for the defendant. GAZIANO, J. In this case we answer a certified question from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts concerning the priority of coverage of two automobile insurance policies that both covered a single motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred when an employee of a refuse company, driving a garbage truck owned by another company, struck and killed a bicyclist. The policies were issued respectively by the plaintiff and defendant insurers to the employer of the driver and the company that owned the truck.[2] A portion of the loss was covered by a primary insurance policy from a third insurance company, not a party here. The two policies at issue were triggered, according to the language in each policy, after the exhaustion of the primary policy. Although the relevant language of the policies differs, each policy states that it provides “excess” coverage[3] (in the circumstances here) and each policy also contains an “other insurance” clause.[4] As the Federal District Court judge noted in his certification order, the circumstances here involve a question of first impression, because one of the two policies is a “hybrid” policy that provides primary coverage for an incident where its insured is driving a vehicle owned by the insured, and excess coverage for an accident where its insured is the driver but is driving a vehicle owned by someone else. The other policy is a “true . . . umbrella” policy that provides only excess coverage where other coverage has been exhausted. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that both excess policies cover the accident equally, after exhaustion of the underlying primary policy, to the extent of their respective policy limits. Background and procedural history. The undisputed facts are drawn from the decision of the Federal District Court judge certifying the question to this […]
Great Woods, Inc., et al. v. Clemmey (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-092-16)
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 15-P-657 Appeals Court GREAT WOODS, INC., & another[1] vs. KARL D. CLEMMEY. No. 15-P-657. Middlesex. January 15, 2016. – July 26, 2016. Present: Green, Wolohojian, & Henry, JJ. Injunction. Judgment, Relief from judgment, Consent judgment. Practice, Civil, Relief from judgment, Judicial discretion. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 21, 1994. After review by this court, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 1115 (2014), a motion for clarification or for modification or dissolution of a permanent injunction was heard by Kathe M. Tuttman, J. Nicholas P. Shapiro (Robert K. Hopkins with him) for the defendant. Jeffrey S. King for the intervener. WOLOHOJIAN, J. After a series of disruptive and threatening incidents, Great Woods, Inc. (Great Woods), brought suit to enjoin Karl Clemmey from entering its property, a large entertainment venue in Mansfield. The suit was resolved when, in 1996, Clemmey agreed to the entry of a permanent injunction that provided: “Clemmey, whether acting personally or through any other person acting under his direction or control, is hereby strictly and permanently ORDERED to desist and refrain (1) from entering upon or crossing over the property in Mansfield, Massachusetts, under the control of Great Woods, Inc. (owned by Time Trust, or Sherman Wolfe,) for any reason whatsoever without the express written consent of Great Woods, Inc. and (2) from accosting, harassing, intimidating or threatening any owner, manager, employee or agent of Great Woods, Inc.” Seventeen years later, in 2013, Clemmey moved to “clarify” that Great Woods’s successor in interest, Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. (Live Nation), had no right to enforce the permanent injunction. In the alternative, Clemmey moved, pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5), 365 Mass. 828 (1974), to modify or dissolve the injunction based on changed circumstances.[2] A judge of the Superior Court (who was not the judge who entered the original injunction) denied Clemmey’s motion and modified the injunction to, in essence, substitute Live Nation for Great Woods. Clemmey appealed, and in an unpublished memorandum and order issued pursuant to our rule 1:28, we vacated the modification order and remanded for findings of fact on the ground that the modification was essentially a new injunction requiring explicit findings. Great Woods, Inc. v. Clemmey, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 1115 (2014). On remand, the judge made findings […]
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Great Northern Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-030-16)
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-11897 INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA vs. GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY. Suffolk. November 2, 2015. – March 7, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Workers’ Compensation Act, Insurer, Coverage, Election of remedies. Insurance, Workers’ compensation insurance, Contribution among insurers, Insurer’s obligation to defend. Contribution. Tender. Election of Remedies. Certification of a question of law to the Supreme Judicial Court by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Barbara I. Michaelides, of Illinois (Aaron S. Bayer, of Connecticut, with her) for the plaintiff. Jennifer C. Sheehan (Richard J. Shea with her) for the defendant. Laura Meyer Gregory, for Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. GANTS, C.J. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit certified the following question to this court, pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 1:03, as appearing in 382 Mass. 700 (1981): “Where two workers’ compensation insurance policies provide coverage for the same loss, may an insured elect which of its insurers is to defend and indemnify the claim by intentionally tendering its defense to that insurer and not the other and thereby foreclose the insurer to which tender is made from obtaining contribution from the insurer to which no tender is made?” We answer “no” to the question. Where, as here, two primary workers’ compensation insurance policies provide coverage for the same loss arising from injury to an employee, the insurance company that pays the loss has a right of equitable contribution to ensure that the coinsurer pays its fair share of the loss. The employer of the injured employee may not prevent the insurance company that pays the loss from exercising its right of equitable contribution by intentionally giving notice of the injury only to that insurer.[1] Background. We set forth below the relevant background and procedural history of the case contained in the certification order from the First Circuit, occasionally supplemented by undisputed information in the record. In January, 2010, an employee of Progression, Inc. (Progression), was severely injured in an automobile accident while traveling abroad on a business trip. Progression had purchased two workers’ compensation policies from two different insurers, one providing compulsory workers’ compensation coverage from the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ISOP), […]
Tricks To Getting A Great Referral
Provided by AOLJobs.com By CareerBuilder By Robert Half International Job seekers know the power of networking in their search for employment. But it’s not just who you know; it’s also who your contacts know. An effective way to make the most of your connections is by asking for referrals. A referral is just one piece of the hiring puzzle, but it can support a well-crafted resume and help your application rise to the top of the stack. It’s a recommendation made to a hiring manager, on your behalf, by someone who knows you both. What can a referral do for you? You may have one of several goals in mind when asking a contact to refer you: Perhaps you’re hoping to set up an informational interview. Or maybe you’ve applied for an open position and hope to cement your candidacy with a personal endorsement. A thoughtful recommendation gives context to your résumé and adds a stamp of approval from someone the hiring manager knows and trusts. It’s a personal introduction that connects you with the company on a level that’s deeper than the rest of the application process allows. A referral says, “This is someone to pay attention to.” If you’re looking for a job in the South End, check out our jobs page. What’s in a referral? A strong referral has all the hallmarks of an effective cover letter — it’s persuasive, engaging and relevant. The advocate introduces you and explains how she knows you. Then, the person highlights the characteristics, values, experiences or skills that led her to endorse you. In closing, it might include a personal note or comment that reinforces the connection between your contact and the hiring manager. A referral does not have to be formal. It can take many forms, from an email or social media message to a quick phone call or hallway conversation. More: How to use your friends to get a job How to use a referral: Tap into your network to find potential advocates — and to help them help you. Here’s how to ensure a strong referral: Ask the right person. Review your closest contacts — friends, business associates, former managers or colleagues, coaches or mentors. Also make a list of companies you’re targeting and positions for which you’re applying. Then, determine where the two intersect. Reach out to prospective advocates who have ties to those companies, requesting that they speak on your behalf. Don’t send a mass email, which will seem too impersonal. Many companies have incentive programs that encourage employees to refer qualified candidates for open positions. But your advocate doesn’t have to work for the company you’re pursuing. Your contact and the manager may be connected socially or through […]
8 Great Posture Changes You’ll Get with Yoga
When I began practicing yoga, I already had pretty good body awareness through my background in physical therapy and my love of running and exercising in general. But it was only through yoga that I was able to develop a deeper understanding of anatomy, body mechanics and greater awareness of the unhealthy habits in my own body when it came to how I stood, walked, sat, lifted things and moved in general. In my work with people in yoga classes and private sessions, I am able to see how stress, the effects of sitting, hard work, raising kids and just overall sensory overwhelm has affected people’s bodies. There are several things I usually see: tight shoulders, lack of overall strength, tightness in the legs and an overall lack of coordination. In most cases, this isn’t because of a physical problem but more a result of spending too much time thinking and not enough time noticing the body. The good news is that all of this can be shifted through a regular yoga practice. For those that insist yoga is not for them because “they can’t do one thing that long, can’t meditate, can’t concentrate, are not spiritual or can’t touch their toes,” I have news for you. Most people struggle with the same things but somehow gather up the requisite energy to get to a class. After one, they make another and pretty soon, as the body starts to feel better and more alive, they’re well on their way. If you’re looking for some practical benefits from yoga, here’s a good list of things I’ve personally seen shift in people after only a few sessions: 1. Standing more evenly on the feet. Yoga is the practice of working from the “ground up.” If you’re in a pose and unsteady, you make changes to your foundation to connect to greater steadiness. When you stand more evenly on the feet, you naturally create better posture. When you have better posture, you have less back pain, less pain in the hamstrings and breathe better. Working in bare feet stretches the bottoms of the feet, which, if you’ve ever had plantar fasciitis (a painful inflammation of the thick band of muscle in the bottom of the foot), you know how horrible this can be. Standing evenly on the feet and stretching the soles of your feet is a great way to build your arches, improve your posture, decrease your chances of foot problems and improve your steadiness while walking or running. 2. Relaxed shoulders. For most of us, stress in our life shows up in our bodies. One of the most common places is the shoulders. As we hold that stress in […]