Boazova v. Safety Insurance
462 Mass. 346
| Mass. | 2012Background
- Boazova filed suit against Safety in Superior Court (July 17, 2007) seeking coverage for damage to her home; Count I alleged breach of contract and Count II alleged G. L. c. 93A violations.
- Policy period relevant to dispute was June 26, 2005–June 26, 2006; Safety modified terms via an indorsement for fungi, wet or dry rot, or bacteria coverage.
- Damage discovered August 1, 2005 during kitchen renovation;Safety denial letters dated Oct. 19, 2005 and May 2, 2006 relied on an exclusion for water damage and the preexisting condition.
- Experts Wilkin (Safety) and Mroszczyk (Boazova) concluded moisture rotted wood sill plate due to a concrete patio adjacent to the wall; damage was hidden prior to renovation.
- Trial court granted Safety summary judgment; Appeals Court affirmed; Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding the loss was excluded under the policy’s surface water exclusion and anticoncurrent cause clause.
- Court’s decision centered on interpreting the policy’s “hidden seepage” coverage, the surface water exclusion, and the anticoncurrent cause provision to preclude coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hidden seepage constitutes a covered peril under the policy. | Boazova argues seepage is within the fungi/rot coverage. | Safety contends seepage is surface water excluded by the policy. | No; loss excluded by surface water and anticoncurrent clause. |
| Whether surface water exclusion applies to the loss in question. | Seepage from the patio was hidden, not surface water. | Water entered via surface water on the patio, triggering exclusion. | Applied; surface water exclusion bars coverage. |
| Whether anticoncurrent cause provisions bar coverage when a covered peril contributes to the loss. | If hidden seepage is covered, it should be covered despite some excluded factors. | Anticoncurrent clause precludes coverage when an excluded peril contributes. | Anticoncurrent clause precludes coverage. |
| Burden-shifting framework for coverage vs. exclusions. | Insured bears initial burden to show a covered loss; insurer bears burden to show exclusions. | Insurer bears burden to prove exclusion applies. | Burden-shifting framework applied; insurer satisfied exclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alton v. Manufacturers & Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 416 Mass. 611 (Mass. 1993) (anticoncurrent cause provisions enforceable; exclusionary language upheld)
- Jussim v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., 415 Mass. 24 (Mass. 1993) (anticoncurrent cause provisions; coverage foreclosed)
- Hakim v. Massachusetts Insurers’ Insolvency Fund, 424 Mass. 275 (Mass. 1997) (ambiguous exclusions resolved against insurer; strong policy for insured in exclusions)
- DeSanctis v. Lynn Water & Sewer Comm’n, 423 Mass. 112 (Mass. 1996) (definition of surface water for exclusionary purposes)
- Trustees of Tufts Univ. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 415 Mass. 844 (Mass. 1993) (objective reasonable insured standard; contract interpretation)