Preferred Mutual Insurance Company v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-062-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-1890 Appeals Court PREFERRED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs. VERMONT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY & others.[1] No. 13-P-1890. Middlesex. October 7, 2014. – June 17, 2015. Present: Cohen, Wolohojian, & Blake, JJ. Insurance, Coverage, Insurer’s obligation to defend, Defense of proceedings against insured, Homeowner’s insurance, Business exclusion, Excess Liability Insurance. Contract, Insurance. Practice, Civil, Summary judgment. Indemnity. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 30, 2012. The case was heard by Dennis J. Curran, J., on motions for summary judgment, and the entry of separate and final judgment was ordered by him. Peter C. Kober for Vermont Mutual Insurance Company. Robert A. Curley, Jr., for the plaintiff. COHEN, J. This insurance dispute arises from an accident in which Richard Dubois was injured while working at a residence in Medford. The residence was owned by Francis and Eileen Munyon, who lived there with their adult son, Joseph.[2] In October, 2009, the Munyons undertook to renovate their second-floor bathroom and hired Dubois’s employer as the plumbing contractor. On Dubois’s first day on the job, he removed old copper piping and other debris from the bathroom and attempted to throw it into the backyard from a second-floor deck. Unbeknownst to Dubois, on the previous day, Joseph had unfastened the porch railing in order to push the old cast iron bathtub into the backyard; but when he finished, he left the railing in an upright position so it appeared to be securely in place. While leaning against the unsecured railing, Dubois fell to the ground and was injured. Dubois and his wife later filed suit against Joseph and his parents, alleging that they were liable for Dubois’s personal injuries and his wife’s loss of consortium. At the time of the accident, Francis and Eileen were the named insureds under a homeowner’s policy issued by the defendant, Vermont Mutual Insurance Company (Vermont). In addition, by virtue of his status as a resident relative, Joseph, too, was an insured under the Vermont policy. Independently, Joseph was the named insured under a commercial lines policy issued by the plaintiff, Preferred Mutual Insurance Company (Preferred), in connection with Joseph’s business as a self-employed licensed electrician. Both Vermont and Preferred were notified of the Duboises’ claims. Vermont assumed the defense of Francis and Eileen, but refused to […]