Commerce Insurance Co., Inc. v. Gentile, 472 Mass. 1012

Commerce issued a standard MA auto policy to the Gentiles, approved forms included an operator exclusion.
In 2004 Lydia Gentile and Junior signed an operator exclusion stating Junior would not operate the insured vehicles.
Renewals, including 2006, showed Junior as excluded; premium was lowered in exchange for exclusion.
Junior's operation of a Gentile vehicle caused a serious accident injuring the Homsis, leading Commerce to deny optional bodily injury coverage.
Superior Court ruled the Gentiles breached the operator exclusion (continuing representation issue not reached); Appeals affirmed.
SJC granted review to determine if breach of the exclusion terminates Commerce's duty to pay optional bodily injury coverage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does breach of the operator exclusion terminate coverage for optional bodily injury?	Commerce: breach by Gentiles voids duty to pay optional bodily injury.	Gentile: exclusion is part of contract and not voided by mere noncompliance.	Yes; breach terminates the duty to pay optional bodily injury.
Should the court resolve whether there is a continuing representation duty during the policy period?	Homsis contends duty extends into coverage period.	Gentile: not necessary to decide; focus on contract breach.	Not decided; the Court leaves the issue for another day.

Heinrich-Grundy v. Allstate Ins. Co., 402 Mass. 810 (Mass. 1988) (interpretation of exclusions in insurance contracts)
Chenard v. Commerce Ins. Co., 440 Mass. 444 (Mass. 2003) (ordinary meaning of policy language; interpret exclusions)
Barnstable County Ins. Co. v. Gale, 425 Mass. 126 (Mass. 1997) (continuing representations in applications as to misrepresentation)
Hanover Ins. Co. v. Leeds, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 54 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997) (statements in applications as continuing representations)
Epstein v. Northwestern Nat'l Ins. Co., 267 Mass. 571 (Mass. 1929) (assent to new policy terms upon renewal; implied consent)