Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Casey, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-034-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 16-P-32 Appeals Court LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. RYAN CASEY & another.[1] No. 16-P-32. Essex. November 7, 2016. – March 29, 2017. Present: Cypher, Massing, & Sacks, JJ. Insurance, Homeowner’s insurance, Insurer’s obligation to defend. Intentional Conduct. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 22, 2014. The case was heard by Robert A. Cornetta, J., on motions for summary judgment. Richard J. Fallon for Ryan Casey. Joseph M. Orlando, Jr., for Evan Williams. John P. Graceffa for the plaintiff. SACKS, J. Twice on the same evening, after consuming alcohol and marijuana, Ryan Casey attacked Evan Williams without warning, punching and kicking him in the face and causing him serious bodily injury. Casey later admitted that he “intend[ed] to touch” Williams, and that he understood, at least at the time of his deposition, that “[w]hen you hit somebody with a fist . . . you know you’re going to do some level of injury.” Williams subsequently made a claim under the homeowners insurance policy on Casey’s familial home. The insurer, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual), responded by commencing this action seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or to indemnify Casey, or to pay medical expenses for Williams, due to an exclusion in the policy for bodily injury “[w]hich is expected or intended by the insured.” On cross motions for summary judgment, a Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Liberty Mutual, concluding as a matter of law that Casey expected or intended to cause Williams bodily injury. Williams and Casey appeal, arguing that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding Casey’s intent to injure.[2] We affirm. Background. We recount certain undisputed material facts from the summary judgment record, reserving for later discussion the facts concerning Casey’s intent. On the evening of June 26, 2013, Casey, then seventeen years old, attended the St. Peter’s fiesta celebration (fiesta) in Gloucester with two friends, Dylan Chaney and Forrest Turner. Prior to arriving, Casey had consumed alcohol and smoked marijuana.[3] At some point while at the fiesta, Casey encountered Williams, also seventeen years old, and the two left on foot in the company of Chaney and Turner, allegedly to go smoke marijuana.[4] After the group arrived at a remote location nearby, Casey […]
Ramirez v. Commerce Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-022-17)
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 16-P-59 Appeals Court WRBASY RAMIREZ[1] vs. COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 16-P-59. Suffolk. November 7, 2016. – March 7, 2017. Present: Cypher, Massing, & Sacks, JJ. Motor Vehicle, Insurance. Insurance, Motor vehicle insurance, Replacement, Construction of policy. Contract, Insurance, Construction of contract. Evidence, Replacement cost. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 21, 2014. The case was heard by Janet L. Sanders, J., on motions for summary judgment. Thomas G. Shapiro for the plaintiff. Nelson G. Apjohn (Eric P. Magnuson also present) for the defendant. Michael Sloman, for Automobile Insurers Bureau, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. CYPHER, J. The plaintiff, Wrbasy Ramirez, appeals from a Superior Court judgment entered on a motion for summary judgment filed by Commerce Insurance Company (Commerce). The plaintiff argues that under the standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy, Commerce must pay, as damages on his third-party claim for the total loss of his automobile, not only the actual cash value of a replacement vehicle, but also the applicable sales tax — even where he has not purchased a replacement vehicle and incurred the sales tax. We affirm.[2] Background. The following undisputed facts are taken from the summary judgment record. In January, 2014, the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision in Danvers with a vehicle driven by Edith McGuinness. Commerce insured McGuiness through a 2008 edition of the standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy (the policy), which contains language approved by the Commissioner of Insurance. The policy included benefits for third-party property damage claims where Commerce determined that its insured was legally responsible for the collision. Specifically, part 4 of the policy provided: “[W]e will pay damages to someone else whose auto or other property is damaged in an accident. The damages we will pay are the amounts that person is legally entitled to collect for property damage through a court judgment or settlement. . . . Damages include any applicable sales tax and the costs resulting from loss of use of the damaged property.” Under the policy and the regulations at issue here, damages are calculated as follows: “Whenever the appraised cost of repair plus the probable salvage value may be reasonably expected to exceed the actual cash value of the vehicle, the insurer shall determine the vehicle’s actual cash value.” […]
Ramirez v. Commerce Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-022-17)
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 16-P-59 Appeals Court WRBASY RAMIREZ[1] vs. COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 16-P-59. Suffolk. November 7, 2016. – March 7, 2017. Present: Cypher, Massing, & Sacks, JJ. Motor Vehicle, Insurance. Insurance, Motor vehicle insurance, Replacement, Construction of policy. Contract, Insurance, Construction of contract. Evidence, Replacement cost. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 21, 2014. The case was heard by Janet L. Sanders, J., on motions for summary judgment. Thomas G. Shapiro for the plaintiff. Nelson G. Apjohn (Eric P. Magnuson also present) for the defendant. Michael Sloman, for Automobile Insurers Bureau, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. CYPHER, J. The plaintiff, Wrbasy Ramirez, appeals from a Superior Court judgment entered on a motion for summary judgment filed by Commerce Insurance Company (Commerce). The plaintiff argues that under the standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy, Commerce must pay, as damages on his third-party claim for the total loss of his automobile, not only the actual cash value of a replacement vehicle, but also the applicable sales tax — even where he has not purchased a replacement vehicle and incurred the sales tax. We affirm.[2] Background. The following undisputed facts are taken from the summary judgment record. In January, 2014, the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision in Danvers with a vehicle driven by Edith McGuinness. Commerce insured McGuiness through a 2008 edition of the standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy (the policy), which contains language approved by the Commissioner of Insurance. The policy included benefits for third-party property damage claims where Commerce determined that its insured was legally responsible for the collision. Specifically, part 4 of the policy provided: “[W]e will pay damages to someone else whose auto or other property is damaged in an accident. The damages we will pay are the amounts that person is legally entitled to collect for property damage through a court judgment or settlement. . . . Damages include any applicable sales tax and the costs resulting from loss of use of the damaged property.” Under the policy and the regulations at issue here, damages are calculated as follows: “Whenever the appraised cost of repair plus the probable salvage value may be reasonably expected to exceed the actual cash value of the vehicle, the insurer shall determine the vehicle’s actual cash value.” […]
Anderson, et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PA, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-022-17)
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-12108 ODIN ANDERSON & others[1] vs. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH PA & others.[2] Middlesex. October 6, 2016. – February 2, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Botsford, Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, & Lowy, Budd, JJ. Consumer Protection Act, Insurance, Unfair or deceptive act, Offer of settlement, Damages. Insurance, Settlement of claim. Damages, Consumer protection case, Interest, Punitive. Interest. Judgment, Interest. Practice, Civil, Judgment, Damages, Interest. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 13, 2003. The case was heard by Brian A. Davis, J., and motions to alter or amend the judgment were also heard by him. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Kathleen M. Sullivan for National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PA. Leonard H. Kesten (Richard E. Brody also present) for the plaintiffs. GAZIANO, J. In this appeal, we consider the proper measure of punitive damages to be assessed against defendants who engage in unfair or deceptive insurance settlement practices in violation of G. L. c. 176D, § 3, and G. L. c. 93A, § 9 (3). The plaintiffs — Odin Anderson, his wife, and his daughter — filed a personal injury action in the Superior Court for serious injuries Odin[3] suffered after being struck by a bus owned by Partners Healthcare Systems, Inc. (Partners), that was being driven by one of its employees. The plaintiffs filed a separate action, under G. L. c. 176D, and G. L. c. 93A, against Partner’s insurers and claims representatives; proceedings in that action were stayed pending resolution of the underlying tort claims. After a trial, a Superior Court jury awarded Anderson $ 2,961,000[4] in damages in the personal injury action, and awarded his wife and daughter $ 110,000 each. At a subsequent, jury-waived trial, a different Superior Court judge found that the insurers and claims representatives violated G. L. c. 93A and G. L. c. 176D by their “egregious,” “deliberate or callously indifferent” actions, “designed to conceal the truth, improperly skew the legal system and deprive the Andersons of fair compensation for their injuries for almost a decade.” Based on these findings, the judge concluded that the insurers’ and claims representatives’ “misconduct warrants the maximum available sanction . . . , both as punishment for what transpired and as a deterrent to similar conduct in the future.” He awarded the plaintiffs treble […]
Morgan v. Massachusetts Homeland Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-005-17)
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 16-P-216 Appeals Court ANTHONY G. MORGAN vs. MASSACHUSETTS HOMELAND INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 16-P-216. Hampden. November 9, 2016. – January 20, 2017. Present: Kafker, C.J., Kinder, & Lemire, JJ. Consumer Protection Act, Class action, Insurance. Practice, Civil, Class action, Consumer protection case. Motor Vehicle, Insurance. Insurance, Motor vehicle insurance, Settlement of claim, Regulation, Amount of recovery for loss. Words, “Actual cash value,” “Retail book value.” Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 8, 2012. Motions for class certification and for summary judgment were heard by Edward J. McDonough, Jr., J.; and the case was heard by Bertha D. Josephson, J. Brett J. Vottero (Eric D. Applebaum also present) for the plaintiff. Michael S. Batson (Michael C. Kinton also present) for the defendant. KAFKER, C.J. The plaintiff, Anthony G. Morgan, brought this civil action against the defendant, Massachusetts Homeland Insurance Company (Homeland or insurer), alleging that Homeland engaged in unfair or deceptive claim settlement practices in violation of G. L. c. 176D, § 3(9), and G. L. c. 93A, in the course of settling his total loss auto insurance claim.[1] See G. L. c. 93A, §§ 2, 9. Even though the claim was settled within two months of the accident, with the plaintiff’s acceptance of the insurer’s offer, the plaintiff claimed that the insurer violated c. 176D and c. 93A because it did not take into account the “retail book value” of his vehicle, as required by 211 Code Mass. Regs. § 133.05(1)(a) (2003). The plaintiff also filed a motion to certify a class action pursuant to G. L. c. 93A, § 9(2). A judge of the Superior Court (motion judge) denied class certification and entered a summary judgment on that count of the complaint. After a jury-waived trial on the plaintiff’s individual c. 93A claim, the trial judge (who was not the motion judge) found that, although Homeland had violated c. 93A, the plaintiff was not injured by the violation, and entered judgment for Homeland on that count of the complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the judges erred by (1) denying his motion for class certification; and (2) concluding that he was not injured by Homeland’s c. 93A violation. Homeland cross-appeals, challenging the trial judge’s ruling that it violated c. 93A. We conclude that the motion for class certification was properly denied, and […]
Adams v. Congress Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-177-16)
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-452 Appeals Court MARK ADAMS vs. CONGRESS AUTO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. No. 15-P-452. Middlesex. March 10, 2016. – December 21, 2016. Present: Kafker, C.J., Vuono, & Henry, JJ. Negligence, Insurance company, Employer, Foreseeability of harm, Causation, Retention of employee, Entrustment, Emotional distress. Damages, Emotional distress. Consumer Protection Act, Responsibility of employer. Practice, Civil, Summary judgment, Motion to amend. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 16, 2013. Motions for summary judgment and to amend the complaint were heard by Peter B. Krupp, J. Henry P. Sorett for the plaintiff. Jeffrey S. Robbins for the defendant. HENRY, J. This case arose from an employee’s improper use of confidential information accessed through her workplace computer. The employee gave that information to her boy friend, who used it to intimidate a witness, Mark Adams. Adams brought this action against the employer, Congress Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. (Congress Agency or agency). A Superior Court judge dismissed four of his five claims. The case proceeded to discovery on the remaining claim against the agency that alleged negligent failure to safeguard Adams’s personal information. The same judge subsequently granted the agency’s motion for summary judgment on the remaining count and in the same memorandum and order denied Adams’s motion to amend his complaint to reinstate the dismissed claims and to add a claim for violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721-2725. Adams appealed. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Summary judgment. “The standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Lev v. Beverly Enterprises-Massachusetts, Inc., 457 Mass. 234, 237 (2010) (Lev), quoting from Cargill, Inc. v. Beaver Coal & Oil Co., 424 Mass. 356, 358 (1997). The burden rests on the defendant, as the moving party, to affirmatively demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on every relevant issue. Ibid. Facts. Viewed in the light most favorable to Adams, as required at this stage of the proceedings, the summary judgment record discloses the following facts. The Congress Agency hired Elizabeth Burgos in August, 2003, as a customer service representative, promoting her to […]
Everest National Insurance Company v. Berkeley Place Restaurant Limited Partnership (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-155-16)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 2011-1470 EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs. BERKELEY PLACE RESTAURANT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ORDER ON POST-VERDICT ISSUES AND FOR JUDGMENT This action was commenced by Everest National Insurance Company as subrogee of three persons: Timothy J. Barletta (“Timothy”), Barletta Engineering Corporation (“Barletta Corp.”) and Osprey Equipment Corporation (“Osprey”). The action is one for contribution under G.L. c. 231B, § 1(d ). Everest, as insurer for all three persons, paid a settlement amount to a state trooper who was seriously injured in a car accident when he was struck from behind by a car driven by Timothy. Everest asserted in this case that defendant, Berkeley Place Restaurant Limited Partnership, d/b/a Grill 23 (“Grill 23″), is jointly liable to the state trooper as a result of negligently serving Timothy alcohol in the hours before the accident. Following a jury verdict in favor of Everest that determined that Grill 23 is liable as a joint tortfeasor and that the settlement reached by Everest with the state trooper and his wife was reasonable, the parties address two issues: (1) how many tortfeasors bear responsibility for a pro rata share of the settlement, and (2) what amount is Everest entitled to receive as contribution from Grill 23? Both questions involve application of the contribution statute. For the first question, the court must determine whether “if equity requires, the collective liability of some as a group shall constitute a single share.” G.L. 1 c. 231B, § 2(b). The second question is whether, under G.L. c. 231B, §1, Everest may obtain contribution for more than a pro rata share of what it paid in settlement? FACTS On Saturday night, September 27, 2008, Timothy attended a private birthday party at the Grill 23 restaurant in Boston. The person being celebrated was Timothy’s sister-in-law, Laura Barletta, and the person throwing the party was her husband, Timothy’s brother, Vincent Barletta. Approximately 40 people attended the party and the guests were, generally, friends and family of Laura Barletta. The party was held in a function room, separate from the rest of the restaurant. There was evidence before the jury sufficient to show that at the party Timothy was served alcohol after it had been recognized by the Grill 23 manager on duty that Timothy was visibly intoxicated. Timothy left the party with his girlfriend, got into a motor vehicle, and drove west on the Mass Pike. Several minutes later, Timothy, while operating under the influence of alcohol, smashed into the rear of a state police vehicle parked on the edge of the Pike to assist a stopped car. State Trooper Christopher Martin was inside the state police vehicle. As a result of the […]
OneBeacon America Insurance Company v. Narragansett Electric Company v. American Home Assurance Company, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-112-16)
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 13-P-1240 Appeals Court ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY vs. NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC COMPANY; AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY & others,[1] third-party defendants. No. 13-P-1240. Suffolk. June 3, 2014. – August 31, 2016. Present: Kantrowitz, Hanlon, & Carhart, JJ.[2] Conflict of Laws. Insurance, Comprehensive liability insurance, Excess Liability Insurance, Pollution exclusion clause. Contract, Insurance, Choice of law clause. Real Property, Environmental damage. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on July 25, 2005. Motions for summary judgment regarding choice of law issues were heard by Allan van Gestel, J., and a motion for reconsideration was considered by him; motions for summary judgment were heard by Margaret R. Hinkle, J., and Peter M. Lauriat, J.; the remaining issues were tried in two phases before them; and entry of final judgment was ordered by Lauriat, J. Jay T. Smith, of the District of Columbia (A. Hether Cahill with him) for Narragansett Electric Company. Kevin J. O’Connor for OneBeacon America Insurance Company. David B. Chaffin for Century Indemnity Company. Eileen T. McCabe, of New York, & John T. Harding, for Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, & others, were present but did not argue. Michael F. Aylward, for American Home Assurance Company & others, was present but did not argue. CARHART, J. This matter is before us pursuant to the December 28, 2015, order of the Supreme Judicial Court, remanding to this court for express consideration the substantive law to be applied to the interpretation of the insurance contracts at issue in OneBeacon America Ins. Co. v. Narragansett Elec. Co. (No. 2), 87 Mass. App. Ct. 1126 (2015) (OneBeacon No. 2). The plaintiff, OneBeacon America Insurance Company (OneBeacon), along with third-party defendants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London and Certain London Market Insurance Companies (collectively, London), American Home Assurance Company (American Home), and Century Indemnity Company (Century) argued in their respective appeals that a Superior Court judge erred in determining that Rhode Island law would apply both in deciding whether the insured, Narragansett Electric Company (NEC), was entitled to coverage for environmental contamination at several Rhode Island sites, and in the allocation of damages on the jury’s verdicts as to one of the sites. For background, we refer to OneBeacon America Ins. Co. v. Narragansett Elec. Co. (No. 1), 87 Mass. App. Ct. 417 […]
McLaughlin, et al. v. American States Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-099-16)
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-729 Appeals Court DANIEL McLAUGHLIN & another[1] vs. AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 15-P-729. Middlesex. May 19, 2016. – August 12, 2016. Present: Kafker, C.J., Cohen, & Green, JJ. Consumer Protection Act, Insurance, Offer of settlement, Unfair act or practice, Attorney’s fees, Damages. Insurance, Settlement of claim, Unfair act or practice. Damages, Attorney’s fees. Practice, Civil, Attorney’s fees. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 21, 2008. The case was heard by Paul D. Wilson, J. John F. Brosnan (James E. Harvey, Jr. with him) for the defendant. Matthew N. Kane for the plaintiffs. GREEN, J. After the well installed by Shaun Harrington began pumping salt water through the plaintiffs’ (McLaughlins) irrigation system, causing extensive damage to their landscaping, the McLaughlins sought recovery from Harrington and his insurer, the defendant, American States Insurance Company (ASIC). Both denied liability, and the McLaughlins eventually filed an action against Harrington and two others.[2] After the McLaughlins obtained a judgment in their favor against Harrington, they commenced this action against ASIC, claiming unfair insurance settlement practices. A judge of the Superior Court entered judgment against ASIC, and awarded the McLaughlins damages based on the legal expenses they incurred in prosecuting their suit against Harrington, but declined to award multiple damages as permitted by the statute. See G. L. c. 93A, § 9(3). On the parties’ cross appeals, we conclude that the judge correctly determined that ASIC failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of the McLaughlins’ claim, and that it failed to make a reasonable offer of settlement after liability of its insured became reasonably clear. We also discern no error of law or abuse of discretion by the judge in his refusal to award the McLaughlins multiple damages. However, we conclude that the judge erred in his failure to award the McLaughlins damages based on the loss of use of the funds ASIC should have offered in settlement once Harrington’s liability became reasonably clear. Background. We summarize the written findings of fact entered by the judge in his detailed and thorough memoranda of decision.[3] In 2003, Assurance was nearing completion of construction of a home for the McLaughlins in Osterville. The home is on a peninsula, surrounded on three sides by salt water bodies connected to Nantucket […]
Winbrook Communications Services, Inc., et al. v. United States Liability Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-068-16)
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-401 Appeals Court WINBROOK COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC., & others[1] vs. UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 15-P-401. Suffolk. March 8, 2016. – June 14, 2016. Present: Hanlon, Sullivan, & Massing, JJ. Practice, Civil, Default, Summary judgment. Insurance, Coverage, Insurer’s obligation to defend, Construction of policy. Contract, Insurance, Performance and breach. Damages, Negligent misrepresentation. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 20, 2011. The case was heard by Geraldine S. Hines, J., on a motion for summary judgment, and a motion for reconsideration and a second motion for summary judgment were heard by Bonnie H. MacLeod, J. Eric F. Eisenberg for the plaintiffs. John B. DiSciullo for the defendant. SULLIVAN, J. In this insurance coverage dispute we consider whether the factual record on cross motions for summary judgment is adequate to permit either party to establish entitlement to judgment as matter of law. Plaintiff Winbrook Communication Services, Inc. (Winbrook[2]), appeals from a summary judgment declaring that the defendant, United States Liability Insurance Company (USLIC), had no obligation under a directors and officers liability policy to pay a judgment obtained by Winbrook against USLIC’s insureds, DeSales Group, LLC (DSG), and William York (collectively, DSG). We conclude that it was error to grant USLIC’s motion for summary judgment because there remain genuine issues of material fact as to the applicability of the policy’s personal profit exclusion. More precisely, there is a genuine dispute of material fact whether DSG received any profit, benefit, remuneration, or advantage to which DSG was not legally entitled. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings. Background. The procedural history of the litigation is both material and undisputed. Winbrook filed suit against DSG and York on August 24, 2010, alleging that York had made a series of negligent misrepresentations concerning DSG the entity’s financial condition that induced Winbrook to continue to work on the development of a children’s storybook series and associated promotional items. The series never went to market and Winbrook sued, seeking compensation for work performed. DSG gave notice to USLIC of Winbrook’s claims in advance of suit. USLIC replied that the policy would not cover the claims. After suit was filed, Winbrook notified USLIC of the suit and of a pending motion for entry of default. DSG reportedly told USLIC that it did not intend to […]