Posts tagged "Indemnity"

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-083-17)

1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 2016-00045 BLS1 PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY vs. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (PIIC) and defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company (National Union) each issued insurance policies to North Suffolk Mental Health Associated, Inc. (North Suffolk). PIIC issued a Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy; and National Union issued a Workers’ Compensation and General Liability (Workers’ Comp.) policy. In a case filed in the Middlesex Superior Court in 2011, captioned Estate of Stephanie Moulton v. Nicholas Puopolo, et al. (the Underlying Action), the plaintiff estate brought suit against eighteen directors of North Suffolk (the Director Defendants) asserting claims arising out of the work related death of Ms. Moulton, a North Suffolk employee. The Director Defendants tendered the claim to both PIIC and National Union. PIIC defended the claim (under a reservation of right) and National Union declined coverage. The Director Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Underlying Action was eventually allowed, after appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). See Estate of Moulton v. Puopolo, 467 Mass. 478 (2014) (Moulton). In this action, PIIC has filed suit against National Union asserting claims for 2 declaratory judgment and equitable subordination and seeking to recover the cost of its successful defense of the Underlying Action. The case is now before the court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, National Union’s motion is ALLOWED, and PIIC’s motion is DENIED. ADDITIONAL FACTS The following additional facts are undisputed. Ms. Moulton was an employee of North Suffolk, a charitable corporation that provides mental health and rehabilitation services. She was assaulted and killed by a patient while performing her job. As explained in Moulton, her estate (the Estate) filed the Underlying Action against the directors of North Suffolk and others. It alleged claims for willful, wanton, reckless, malicious and grossly negligent conduct and, also, as to the Director Defendants, breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint alleged that the Director Defendants “effectuated” policies and failed to “effectuate” other policies that caused Ms. Moulton’s death. Id. at 480. They “moved to dismiss the complaint chiefly on the grounds that, with respect to the wrongful death action, they are immune from suit, as Ms. Moulton’s employer, under the exclusive remedy provision, G.L.c. 152, § 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (act), and, with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, they owed Moulton no such duty.” Id. The Superior Court denied the motion to dismiss; the director defendants sought interlocutory review under the doctrine of present execution; and the case was transferred to the SJC. As […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 3, 2017 at 10:06 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Pacific Indemnity Company, et al. v. Lampro, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-087-14)

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   13-P-1510                                       Appeals Court   PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY & others[1]  vs.  MICHAEL LAMPRO[2] & another.[3] No. 13-P-1510. Berkshire.     April 1, 2014. – July 24, 2014.   Present:  Vuono, Meade, & Carhart, JJ. Consumer Protection Act, Insurance, Unfair act or practice, Subrogation.  Insurance, Coverage, General liability insurance, Subrogation, Unfair act or practice.  Contract, Insurance.  Indemnity.  Subrogation.  Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 17, 2010.   The case was heard by was heard by John A. Agostini, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.     Matthew D. Sweet for the plaintiffs. Jeffrey L. McCormick for Preferred Mutual Insurance Company.   MEADE, J.  The plaintiff, Pacific Indemnity Company (Pacific), as subrogee of its insured, Steven and Sue Levkoff, appeals from the entry of judgment for the defendant, Preferred Mutual Insurance Company (Preferred).  Pacific and the Levkoffs sued Preferred and its insured, Michael Lampro, principal of the landscaping company Steven Michael Designs (SMD), after SMD damaged the Levkoffs’ property while performing tree and brush removal work.  On appeal, Pacific claims that the Superior Court judge erred by concluding that the damage to the Levkoffs’ property was not covered by SMD’s commercial general liability  insurance policy.  Pacific argues that judgment on the pleadings should not have entered for Preferred on Pacific’s G. L. c. 93A claim because, even if the Levkoffs’ property damage fell outside of SMD’s insurance policy, Preferred’s conduct violated G. L. c. 93A.  We affirm. 1.  Background.  In January, 2009, the Levkoffs contracted with SMD to perform landscaping services on their land in Monterey, Massachusetts.  The Levkoffs were insured under a homeowners’ insurance policy issued by Pacific, and SMD held a commercial general liability insurance policy through Preferred.  The Levkoffs planned to build a vacation home on their property, which borders Lake Garfield and is considered an environmentally sensitive area.  Prior to contracting with SMD, the Levkoffs presented their building and landscaping plans to the Monterey Conservation Commission (commission).  The permits issued by the commission allowed the Levkoffs to pursue their landscaping plans so long as they did so in compliance with environmental regulations. The Levkoffs and SMD executed a $ 24,000 contract to remove trees and brush “in accordance with” the commission’s permits and the Levkoffs’ engineering plans.  The contract held SMD “responsible for damage to new or existing work on the […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 24, 2014 at 3:36 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,