Posts tagged "Pacific"

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NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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: , , , , , ,